Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Karl Rove: Traitor?
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 136 of 271 (224449)
07-18-2005 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Silent H
07-15-2005 4:55 AM


Strange answers from Holmes
Monk writes:
Will you agree with Fitzgerald's final report or not?
Holmes writes:
What I can say is I have no feelings that it must contain a criminal indictment of Rove. Remember I was the one that was quashing the "treason" talk going on at the beginning of this thread.
You have strong feelings about it Holmes and you were NOT squashing treason talk at the beginning of the thread. You were the one who first mentioned treason. But when you mentioned it, you were straddling the fence to cover yourself. This is what you said in Message 3
quote:
While I consider Rove "traitorous", because he holds the wellbeing of this nation and its people subservient to other entities, I am not sure if he is technically guilty of "treason."
So you admit there is no evidence to declare Rove a traitor, yet you still consider him to be traitorous. There is also no evidence to suggest conspiracy or lying to the Grand Jury, but that doesn’t bother you, convict him anyway. You used this technique when you said that just because Wilson is a liar on one topic, it doesn’t make him a liar on others.
I really wish you would stop this equivocating, Holmes, it’s a poor defense. Saying that Rove is traitorous without being a traitor is fallacious. But I will grant you that it’s a defense that can be used anytime, anywhere, and on any topic. Maybe everyone should start using it because it’s so easy, here’s a few:
Clinton had a blowjob, but that doesn’t mean he had sex.
Hilary found the Rose Law firm billing records in her bedroom after two years, but that doesn’t mean she lied about it.
Howard Dean said Republicans are brain dead, but that doesn’t mean he insulted Republicans.
We could go on all day with this, but you get the idea.
The best case scenario is that he skirted a legal edge to avoid criminal prosecution, while attempting to discredit an administration critic, by making false statements and leaking info that could be damaging to that critic's relative. And this isn't just some nobody, it is an administration official.
Rove wasn’t damaging to the critics relative, in fact, this whole affair is going to be the best thing to happen to her. Plame and Wilson are getting rich off of this. Movie to follow with more riches.
But I have to say... and this is purely in defense of F at this time... if there was something strange going on, then I think the CIA or at the very least Wilson would be complaining more publicly.
Wilson hasn’t even begun to complain, but he will. I’ve noted in other posts we will begin to see Wilson everywhere, because that’s how he can sell more books. And there is something strange going on which is precisely why premature condemnations of Rove are purely partisan.
Why do you think Judith Miller is in prison? To protect Rove? No, because Rove has given a universal waiver to allow anyone to speak to the grand jury. So Miller isn’t protecting Rove, it must be someone else. Wouldn’t it be wise for Bush to find out who that person is before taking action against Rove?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Silent H, posted 07-15-2005 4:55 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Silent H, posted 07-19-2005 10:09 AM Monk has not replied

  
Meeb
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 271 (224452)
07-18-2005 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Monk
07-18-2005 4:28 PM


Re: Rove should stay
When Hollywood gets involved, they will really cash in. Hollywood will either put out a made for TV movie or maybe a full length flick like they did a few years ago about Reagan played by Brolin, remember that? Hollywood will jump at the chance to smear Bush. Look for it, it’s going to happen. Oh yes, we have only just begun to see the Wilson / Plame media campaign.
Well first you have to undertsnad that Hollywood is an industry area for film industry. There is no "big Hollywood company", just studios that put out movies that they feel can make money for them.
That's why for example Jerry Bruckheimer makes only patriotic movies with machismo and explosions. And that's why Oliver Stone makes movies of conspiracies and trying to show the "other side" of things. It's kind of a Jing&Jang thing. Keeping the views in balance and trying to bring in enough money to satisfy the shareholders and to make another.
To claim that only slandering films come out of Hollywood is pretty stupid thing to say (admins, ban me if you must for that, but I stand behind it 110%).
Besides, I wouldn't call "DC 9/11: TIme of Crisis" a slander of Bush.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Monk, posted 07-18-2005 4:28 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Monk, posted 07-18-2005 5:31 PM Meeb has replied

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


Message 138 of 271 (224457)
07-18-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Meeb
07-18-2005 5:10 PM


Re: Rove should stay
Well first you have to undertsnad that Hollywood is an industry area for film industry. There is no "big Hollywood company", just studios that put out movies that they feel can make money for them.
Well, of course I understand that. When I used the term "Hollywood" I didn't mean to imply there is one Hollywood "company" that makes all the movies. It was a reference to all movie producers as a group and that not all, but a majority of them have political views that are decidedly left of center, in other words, holding more positions in support of Democratic politicians and policies.
Keeping the views in balance and trying to bring in enough money to satisfy the shareholders and to make another.
I don't see any attempt at all to "keep views in balance". The drive it to make the most cash in the shortest amount of time. If that can occur while at the same time catering to the political leanings of the movie makers, so much the better.
To claim that only slandering films come out of Hollywood is pretty stupid thing to say (admins, ban me if you must for that, but I stand behind it 110%).
I never said "only" and it's pretty stupid to draw that conclusion from my post. My point was that given the left wing political slant that many in Hollywood maintain, then it it likely that someone there will jump at the chance to turn the Wilson story into a movie. When that happens, Joe and Valerie will get rich (or more rich than they already are).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Meeb, posted 07-18-2005 5:10 PM Meeb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Meeb, posted 07-18-2005 6:03 PM Monk has replied

  
Meeb
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 271 (224466)
07-18-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Monk
07-18-2005 5:31 PM


Re: Rove should stay
It was a reference to all movie producers as a group and that not all, but a majority of them have political views that are decidedly left of center, in other words, holding more positions in support of Democratic politicians and policies.
Name some. Is Jerry Bruckheimer a leftist? How about Mel Gibson, Arnold Swachawnr... Strong, Joel Silver, Bruce Willis, Charles and Lawrence Gordon, John Davis, Gale Ann Hurd, John Cameron, Chad Oman and many others as leftists? And while we're at it, let's not forget: Is John Milius a leftist or even close to the center?
I don't see any attempt at all to "keep views in balance".
Let's see, IMDB says that last year (2004) 17370 movies (this includes straight to video and TV stuff) were released. How much did you spend time and effort to actually find the movies that you would like to see instead of just complaining about how you are brainwashed by forcing you to go see films with "leftist agenda".
When that happens, Joe and Valerie will get rich (or more rich than they already are).
Are you sure? I heard Jessica Lynch didn't get anything from "Saving Jessica Lynch". Depends on who writes it, but to quote Gary Brandner: "For each sequel they made, I received a check which I wasn't embarrased to cash in."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Monk, posted 07-18-2005 5:31 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Monk, posted 07-19-2005 12:27 AM Meeb has replied

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


Message 140 of 271 (224548)
07-19-2005 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Meeb
07-18-2005 6:03 PM


Re: Rove should stay
Name some. Is Jerry Bruckheimer a leftist? How about Mel Gibson, Arnold Swachawnr... Strong, Joel Silver, Bruce Willis, Charles and Lawrence Gordon, John Davis, Gale Ann Hurd, John Cameron, Chad Oman and many others as leftists? And while we're at it, let's not forget: Is John Milius a leftist or even close to the center?
Did I say every last celebrity was a Democrat? Do you understand what the word Majority means? It means that although there will always be representatives of the minority, in Hollywood, Democrats rule. But if you want me to name some, then here is a partial list of some of the more vocal Democratic celebrities, but it is by no means conclusive:
1. Martin Sheen 2. Alec Baldwin 3. Jessica Lange 4. Sean Penn 5. Susan Sarandon 6. Ed Harris 7. Woody Harrelson 8. John Cusak 9. Mike Farrell 10. Robert Altman 11. George Clooney 12. Barbara Streisand 13. Tyne Daley 14. Ed Asner 15. Bradley Whitford 16. Danny Glover 17. Casey Kasem 18. Sally Kirkland 19. Oliver Stone 20. Sheryl Crowe 21. Michael Moore 22. Harry Belafonte 23. Jane Fonda 24. Tim Robbins 25. Kevin Spacey 26. Steven Earle 27. Gillian Anderson 28. Kim Basinger 29. Ed Begley, Jr. 30. Jackson Browne 31. (REM)Peter Buck and Michael Stipe 32. Diahann Carroll 33. Don Cheadle 34. Jill Clayburgh 35. Peter Coyote 36. Lindsay Crouse 37. Matt Damon 38. Vincent D’Onofrio 39. David Duchovny 40. Olympia Dukakis 41. Charles S. Dutton 42. Hector Elizondo 43. Cary Elwes 44. Mia Farrow 45. Laurence Fishburne 46. Sean Patrick Flanery 47 Bonnie Franklin 48. Jeananne Garafalo 49. Melissa Gilbert 50. Elliott Gould 51. Robert Guillaume 52. Ethan Hawke 53. Ken Howard 54. Helen Hunt 55. Anjelica Huston 56. Samuel L. Jackson 57. Jane Kaczmarek 58. Melina Kanakaredes 59. Tea Leoni 60. Wendie Malick 61. Camryn Manheim 62. Marsha Mason 63. Richard Masur 64. Dave Matthews 65. Esai Morales 66. Ed O'’Neill 67. Chris Noth 68. Alexandra Paul 69. CCH Pounder 70. Bonnie Raitt 71. Carl Reiner 72. Tony Shalhoub 73. Gloria Steinem 74. Marcia Strassman 75. Loretta Swit 76. Studs Terkel 77. Lily Tomlin 78. Blair Underwood 79. Dennis Weaver 80. Bradley Whitford 81. James Whitmore 82. Alfre Woodard 83. Noah Wyle 84. Moby 85. Robert Redford 86. Kathleen Turner 87. Joan Cusak, 88. Dustin Hoffman, 89 Oprah Winfrey
Let's see, IMDB says that last year (2004) 17370 movies (this includes straight to video and TV stuff) were released. How much did you spend time and effort to actually find the movies that you would like to see instead of just complaining about how you are brainwashed by forcing you to go see films with "leftist agenda".
I never said anything about a brainwashing leftist agenda. I said that for the most part, Hollywood leans to the left and supports Democratic viewpoints. I don’t need to watch more than 17,000 movies to conclude that.
Are you sure? I heard Jessica Lynch didn't get anything from "Saving Jessica Lynch". Depends on who writes it, but to quote Gary Brandner: "For each sequel they made, I received a check which I wasn't embarrased to cash in."
Yea, I’m sure Wilson did just fine with his 7 figure book deal at Carroll & Graf Publishers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Meeb, posted 07-18-2005 6:03 PM Meeb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Meeb, posted 07-19-2005 3:24 AM Monk has replied

  
Meeb
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 271 (224558)
07-19-2005 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Monk
07-19-2005 12:27 AM


Re: Rove should stay
Do you understand what the word Majority means?
Ofcourse I do, but do you understand the diffrence between an actor and a producer/director. 90% of thew people on yout list are actors, with the ability to put themselves in other peoples mind.
To quote R. S. McNamara: "If we are to deal with terrorists across the globe, we must develope a sense of empathy - I don't mean "sympathy", but rather "understanding" - to counteir their attacks on us and the western world".
I noticed that you put Michael Moore in your list. Just a note: Moore is an independant filmmaker, not a "Hollywood mogul".
Also you put in a couple of singers that have only minimal activity with the Hollywood industry.
And since your list is a direct rip-off of Hollywood Boycot List by Jon Alverez, the leader of the PABAAH, that has on their websites a "kick the UN out of the US" and "no foreign born president" petitions.
Even this:
http://www.pabaah.com/modules.php...
should tell you that the list and the site it was on is nothing but a propaganda machine that would make Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf smile of joy.
How about next time actually checking out these people, who they are, what have they done, why have they done it, before just copying and pasting a list.
. I said that for the most part, Hollywood leans to the left and supports Democratic viewpoints. I don’t need to watch more than 17,000 movies to conclude that.
Really? So out of those 17000 movies you are forced to go see those that you know include something that you don't like? Oh my, them evil Hollywooders are out to get ya!
Yea, I’m sure Wilson did just fine with his 7 figure book deal at Carroll & Graf Publishers.
You mean the book published in April last year? Oh, it's really sad that people can't write books and make money out of them. Can you give a source where we can read that Wilson actually go million something out of his book deal?
Edited URL length to fix page width - The Queen
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 07-19-2005 07:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Monk, posted 07-19-2005 12:27 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Monk, posted 07-19-2005 2:50 PM Meeb has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 142 of 271 (224588)
07-19-2005 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Monk
07-18-2005 4:45 PM


Re: Strange answers from Holmes
You have strong feelings about it Holmes and you were NOT squashing treason talk at the beginning of the thread. You were the one who first mentioned treason. But when you mentioned it, you were straddling the fence to cover yourself.
That's a rather self-serving interpretation, but unlike Rove you don't get to spin my words for me.
I do have strong feelings about members of the Bush administration, and I do feel that Rove (though he is a lesser figure) cares more about things other than the well being of this nation. Thus they are all "traitorous" to me. Traitorous being that they have an allegiance they hold superior to our nation... get it?
As far as this particular case goes, I do not have very strong feelings whether he was going to be, nor whether he should be, indicted. I do think its obvious he did something wrong, but as I have already stated Tal's point may give him a legal out, I am patently not saying he will be charged with a crime. And I will add that this is such a small issue compared to the much greater issues of this administration, I can hardly get worked up that much about it.
Its like getting one of Capone's henchmen on a J-walking violation, instead of Capone on a mass murder rap.
And I did step on the talk of "treason" charges. I did this more than once. Treason as a criminal offence is very very hard to get stuck with. There is no way he came close to it.
I really wish you would stop this equivocating, Holmes, it’s a poor defense. Saying that Rove is traitorous without being a traitor is fallacious.
Hey genius, that means I didn't equivocate... learn logic. And also learn some english, there is a difference between being "traitorous" and having commited the act of treason. One is a traitor if one has commited treason, but one may be traitorous without have commited such an act yet.
Its like the difference between a person who is described as violent, versus a perpetrator of a violent crime.
Clinton had a blowjob, but that doesn’t mean he had sex.
I already said he lied, and as far as I am concerned he did have sex. It is true that many believe oral sex is not actually "sex", but I'm not one of them, and he was a big enough boy to know what was being asked.
I know nothing about the Hilary thing. I don't like her much anymore so yoru criticism is meaningless to me. And I already said Dean was insulting Reps, though you do seem to back up his assertion.
Rove wasn’t damaging to the critics relative, in fact, this whole affair is going to be the best thing to happen to her. Plame and Wilson are getting rich off of this.
That is merely ad hominem, though I am likely to chalk it up to you merely projecting your own desires on them. Wilson had been a hero up to the moment he criticized this administration, and then he became a money grubbing fiend... according to Bush apologists. Who changed is obvious.
And there is something strange going on which is precisely why premature condemnations of Rove are purely partisan.
Unlike the premature defense of Rove, and outlandish condemnations of Wilson, both of which patently ignore the FACT that Rove was giving false info to smear Wilson and protect Bush's bad data?
Why do you think Judith Miller is in prison?
I have no idea. Are you claiming you do? I'm mildly interested in wherever this goes. It seems to have already attached itself to Cheney's aide. If it can hit Wolfowitz, Tenet, or Ashcroft, I'll be more interested.

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 136 by Monk, posted 07-18-2005 4:45 PM Monk has not replied

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


Message 143 of 271 (224648)
07-19-2005 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Meeb
07-19-2005 3:24 AM


Re: Rove should stay
Notice I said "Democratic celebrities". The term celebrity may not necessarilly mean we are only speaking of actors. But my original point was that some group in Hollywood is going to make a movie about the Wilson story and when they do, Wilson and his wife will make a bundle.
Just so we are clear hear and you understand what I mean when I use the term "Hollywood", when I say Hollywood I mean those individuals living somewhere in southern California who are involved in making movies. They may have homes outside of California but when they make movies they are in movie studios in southern California. They may also have to shoot their movies on location so they may not always be in Southern Californmia but for the most part they are. They may be producers, directors, actors, or whoever but I use the term "Hollywood" to designate that group. The group may also include TV and radio personalities, authors, or other type of celebrity. Are you Ok with that designation and do you understand what I mean when I say "Hollywood" is doing this or that?.
I feel as though I must qualify every single term I use so that you won't go off on some tangent that is beside the point. I hope we a clear here.
Now, since you obviously do not believe the majority, not minority, but majority of "Hollywood" types has left leaning political views, then do you think they lean to the right and tend to support Republican positions? Maybe you believe there is no political bias at all and "Hollywood" types are not political at all.
Regarding the list. You asked for it so I gave it to you. The folks on that list have been public about their political views and they all supported Kerry and condemned Bush in the last election. I have heard many of them speak out about their politics. I didn't just cut and paste, I've heard them for myself, have you?
All I'm saying is that the predominate viewpoint in "Hollywood" is left leaning. This is getting far of the OP, but you seem obsessed with it so I'm obliging you.
So, what is your assessment of the majority political view in Hollywood? Which is it? Left, Right or Neutral?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Meeb, posted 07-19-2005 3:24 AM Meeb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Meeb, posted 07-19-2005 7:09 PM Monk has replied

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


Message 144 of 271 (224652)
07-19-2005 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Silent H
07-15-2005 7:58 AM


Re: 10 responses for Holmes
Q1a: Did Wilson also work for Republican administrations, including for Bush Sr to great acclaim and in defiance of Saddam Hussein, risking his life to save Americans, as well as supporting Republican candidates as late as 2000?
Well, Joe is the one proclaiming great acclaim and he did so on numerous occasions in his book. Wilson did work for Republican administrations but so what. Each administration employs thousands of individuals, are you suggesting that all of them must be aligned with the Presidents political affiliation? Of course not.
Joe Wilson worked for Al Gore and Tom Foley and was a known opponent of the plan to invade Iraq. This should have disqualified him for a trip to find evidence in support of the invasion of Iraq, but the CIA missed it in large part because his wife pushed his recommendation through CIA channels and no one questioned it.
Wilson firmly believed that the Iraq invasion was a bad idea, so he would not have had much interest in turning up evidence that supported the invasion. He wanted to corroborate his position that the invasion was a bad idea.
Wilson was hired by, and worked for, the Gore campaign. He was and is a close personal friend of Gore and actively campaigned for him. Wilson continued to support democrats by working for Kerry in the 2004 campaign. His comments during these to campaigns make it clear how partisan Joe Wilson is. The fact that he was employed in the Bush Sr. campaign more than 15 years ago has little bearing on his current political inclinations.
Q1b: If so, how does that suggest he is a partisan likely to lie to the CIA?
Being a partisan does not imply that he lied to the CIA, only that he has a bias against the Bush administration and was not fair in the Niger reporting because of that bias.
Q2c: Why would he bother working for the CIA if he felt it was for a republican cause, instead of just refusing the job?
Because it was an opportunity to discredit the administration. Why send Wilson to investigate a WMD issue when he has no background in WMD’s? His wife is the one who is knowledgeable on WMD’s since that was her desk job at the CIA. She was a WMD analyst. But since Plame was so effective in arguing the case for her husband to pursue that crazy report as she put it, the CIA agreed and sent Wilson. They shouldn’t have.
Q2d: Why, after going on the mission, would he feel he'd have to lie to stop a war he would eventually oppose, if in fact the war had not been proposed yet by the administration, and he could not have known that this was going to be one of the arguments for the war?
He didn’t lie because he wanted to stop a war. That’s ridiculous. He lied about the nepotism regarding his wife’s suggestion that her husband be selected for the Niger trip.
Q2: Has it been shown that Rove was involved in attempting to undercut Wilson, directly after Wilson's statements and not "long" after?
No, that hasn’t been shown at all. Nothing has been shown at all that Rove did anything to undercut Wilson other than corroborate information that was already being circulated amongst several journalists. Remember, it was Cooper who contacted Rove, not the other way around.
Q3a: Has it been shown that his intel was different than what B&R promoted, and that the CIA had tried to correct them several times on the matter?
No, it hasn’t been shown that the intel is different
Q3b: If it was not different, then why attempt to discredit Wilson by suggesting his wife authorized the project herself, and suggest it had nothing to do with Cheney or the CIA, instead of simply pointing out that his media article conflicted with his intel report which backed their proposition?
The two have nothing to do with each other. Plame recommended Wilson and actively lobbied for him. Plame didn’t authorize or approve it, she recommended him. Cheney didn’t recommend Wilson for the trip, it was his wife.
Q4a: Has it been shown that, in fact, the Senate did not mention any sort of qualitative statements regarding Wilson or his intel (besides noting some discrepancies which existed across all intel reports generated), indeed suggesting that his report was valid including for interpretations that the sale, or attempted sale, was unlikely?
Wilson has stated that Iraqi’s never made any inquiries into the purchase of uranium from Niger. Wilson was definitive about it and in interviews he goes beyond the statement regarding what he found during his trip. The fact is that the Iraqi’s were trying to buy uranium as late as 1999. It is unclear if there were any more recent attempts and the Senate committee said that despite rumors, there was no credible evidence of recent activity. But Wilson makes clear in his book that Iraqis tried to purchase uranium during the 1999 time frame and Wilson’s report includes a potential contact from the Iraqi’s that didn’t go any further because the Niger official was concerned about UN sanctions.
Q4b: Has it been shown that, in fact, the Senate criticized CIA handling of the intel, biasing it in favor of certain analyst's interpretations (which were based on initial erroneous assumptions), and not reporting Wilson's findings accurately to Cheney?
I really don’t understand this question. The Senate criticized the CIA handling of intel, that’s true. Was the questioning in favor of a certain analysts interpretations? I don’t know what you are talking about here.
Q5: Has it been shown that Wilson's intel did not bolster "intelligence" on the sale, showing instead that while most CIA analysts used it to corroborate their theory (which at that point was already errant), INR analysts (who are equally "intelligence") in contrast found it disproving?
Wilson’s intel did bolster evidence on the sale by suggesting a recent inquiry into the purchase of uranium by the Iraqis. But the sale didn’t go through.
Q6: Has it been shown that, in fact, the CIA had many qualms about the reliability of the Intel and had tried to get the White House to remove such references?.
The CIA did have qualms about the reliability of the intel and made several adjustments to the references, but the final version was not rejected by the CIA.
Q7: Has it been shown that, in fact, Cheney's questions drove the CIA to create the investigation and that Wilson had multiple contacts with CIA regarding that investigation outside of his wife, indeed that she had no control over the decision to send him at all?
Well of course Wilson had multiple contacts with the CIA outside of his wife. He met with CIA officials in his home after the trip to brief them. But if it hadn’t been for Plame, Wilson would not have gone Niger. Not because she approved the mission, she didn’t. But she recommended him to her CIA supervisors and actively pushed to get him selected for the mission.
If she had full control of the situation she wouldn’t have pushed, she would just have sent him. As it is, she made the recommendation and argued on his behave noting his credentials as the best candidate for the job. The CIA should have questioned her but didn’t and eventually approved Wilson for the task.
Q8: Has it been shown that the trip was, in fact, meant to discover the accuracy of intel regarding a specific attempt, and the possibilities of its success, and that this put in question that event, both that it occurred and that it could have ever succeeded?
I don’t know the parameters of the trip, or the details of the mission instructions given him by the CIA. Do you have a specific reference that shows exactly what his mission was? Please cite references.
Q9: While you cited this article from Cloud, which indicates a 2002 memo could be used to track the source of the leak (as the source used info from that memo), how does that raise any issue that it had been released publicly prior to the Novak article, as the article does not discuss that possibility at all?
It raises the possibility that the memo could be the source of the leak. I’m not saying it was but since speculation seems to be norm on this story, and since Cloud was aware of the memo in October 2003, it had already been leaked by that time. Exactly when this memo became public information and who first leaked it is likely part of Fitzgerald’s investigation.
Q9b: Why are you suggesting Cloud was leaked that memo such that it indicates it had been circulating when Rove made his comments, as Cloud's article was made after the CIA asked for an investigation and Cloud suggests where he learned of the memo (two people familiar with the memo, who might be related to the investigation)?
I never suggested Cloud leaked the memo. Cloud wrote about the memo in his article. As I previously stated, it hasn’t been made public when this memo was first leaked nor is it known who leaked it. It was written in 2002, long before the Rove discussions and was placed in Cloud’s article in October 2003. So it was leaked at some point between 2002 and October 2003. But any further details are unknown at this time. My only point is that this avenue should be explored before the investigation is concluded.
I’m sure you would agree that the 2002 memo should be investigated because it includes Plame by name and was a classified document in 2002. If this was in the public domain before Novak or Cooper talked to Rove, then it is another indication that Rove is innocent.
Q9c: Do you agree with the contents of Cloud's article which clearly show Plame was not "responsible" for the trip, that the trip was initiated by Cheney and CIA questions about a particular incident, and that the conclusions were negative on that point?
I’ve already discussed this point in Q7. Plame was not responsible for the trip. I never said she was, those are your words. She recommended her husband for the trip.
Q9d: While you go on to say...
quote:
you’ll see that it has appeared in several news outlets and blogs over the last couple of years. Here is a reference to it in DailyKos.
.., doesn't the article actually rebut your own assertion by arguing that Cloud was the first person outside of Novak to mention a memo, that it was clearly not from direct information, and that the next journalist to mention it as a source was Gannon?
I never said anything about who was first to mention the memo. Those are your words, not mine. It was the first time that I heard about it. I don’t know when that memo was first made public nor do I know who first wrote about it.
Q9e: Does this article also go on to argue that the logical conclusion is that the only people which might have been leaked the memo are Novak and Gannon, and most importantly this was all concurrent with the Rove-Novak connection and not vastly prior to Novak's column?
The Cloud article does not even mention Gannon. You are confusing multiple different articles and combining them together to weave an argument. Again, I don’t know who leaked the 2002 CIA memo. If your logical conclusion is that the only people which might have leaked the memo are Novak and Gannon, then suggest it to Fitzgerald, maybe he doesn’t know about it.
Q9f: Does this article, in fact, rebut your position?
Not at all. First of all, I included the DailyKos blog just to indicate that others were writing about this 2002 memo. Gannon was one of them. This has nothing to do with the Cloud article from the Wall Street Journal. Gannon in not even mentioned in the Cloud article. The summary that you quote is not from a news article it’s from a blogger.
Q10: Even if Rove is found to not be chargeable, or beats charges of outing a covert officer, aren't there good reasons for people to be concerned that Rove, an administration official, attempted to discredit an administration critic by making false statements to the press regarding that critic, in order to bolster their (at this point) proven erroneous claims against his proven accurate claims?
No not at all. Rove has done nothing wrong and should not be punished for doing nothing wrong. You can string together all sorts of hypotheticals if you like but they don’t mean anything until the final report is issued.
Q10b: Don't you think such a person and those connected with that action should pay some very real price, like removal from office?
No, not based on the evidence I have seen. I don’t think Rove should be removed from office.
Q10c: If Rove is convicted, should Bush be held accountable for backing this person using White House assets, and not removing him from duty when he is clearly being investigated for improper if not criminal activity as an official?
If Rove is convicted, then the evidence will need to come from the Fitzgerald report. If that report shows Rove is guilty of a crime. Then the President has said that he will not only fire that individual but will also ensure that individual is prosecuted. But that’s a lot of big IF’s.
You know the jingle: If ‘if’ were a skiff we’d all go sailing.
Q10d: Don't you think, given the evidence in support of Wilson's claims, that perhaps he is the one who is the target of Bush ideologues, and should be given a break?
Wilson doesn’t need a break. He lied and can’t be trusted because of it. Besides, He and Plame are reaping a windfall on this whole affair and are in a much better financial situation because of it. This is turning out to be a huge financial bonanza for them. It’s become far more lucrative than their previous jobs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 07-15-2005 7:58 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Silent H, posted 07-25-2005 6:02 AM Monk has not replied

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


Message 145 of 271 (224654)
07-19-2005 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Monk
07-18-2005 4:28 PM


Re: Rove should stay
Monk writes:
So then you have no basis for your assertion that Rove should be gone. It’s not based on any wrong doing on his part in the current investigation. It is based on his past history. Well, if that’s the case, then maybe you should start a new thread and put forward your evidence in that thread. But in this thread, you have no basis.
WTF are you talking about? Since when did this thread become a court of law. I have an opinion, which is that Karl Rove will do whatever it takes to win. You know it, I know it, hell anybody that has followed George Bush's political career knows it, so get down off you high and mighty horse, I really don't need to be told that I have no basis.
What I cannot for the life of me understand is why you feel that he should not be fired. It really is quite simple. He was involved in the leaking of a CIA agent’s name. That much we know. President Bush was asked if he'd fire anyone involved in the leak and replied that yes, he would. So why are we even having this discussion?
Honestly Monk, why is it so important to you that Karl Rove not be punished for what he did? I am, at this point, not really interested in the legalities of it all...I have said this in previous posts. I am after the President to show us some of that integrity that he seems to claim so often. He said he would fire anyone involved, so shut up and fire him already.
Monk writes:
He didn’t do it. I know you desperately want to believe otherwise, but it just ain’t so.
What are we talking about here? Whether or not he leaked a covert spies name or just that he leaked an agent’s name. You see, to me this makes no difference on whether or not the President should do what he said he would do, which was to fire Karl Rove.
Monk writes:
You may not like it, but again, facts are hard to deny for objective people. You, on the other hand, are obviously bitterly partisan and are loathe to think that Rove might escape the lynching being served up on the left.
What I loathe are people that will stop to nothing to defend someone. Again, Karl Rove leaked the name, and he should be fired for it. Why is that such a bad thing?
Monk writes:
Thankfully, we have a little thing called due process to prevent wild lynch mobs from excising hate filled vendettas.
This was meant as a joke...right?
Monk writes:
Hollywood will jump at the chance to smear Bush.
Bush is doing just a fine job of smearing himself. "I'll fire anyone involved in the leak"..."Wait...it was Karl...oh shit...what I meant was...".
In a way though, sadly I agree with you about a TV movie of the week. Like you, I am no fan of that crap either and certainly will not watch. But so what? Hollywood is a business and they'll do what ever they feel necessary to make a buck.
What it doesn’t change is that our President said he would fire anyone involved in the leak, so that is what he should do.
Do you notice how the President has again changed his tune? Now he's saying that he will only fire someone if they committed a crime. What a hypocrite. How can you trust anything he says Monk?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Monk, posted 07-18-2005 4:28 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Monk, posted 07-19-2005 5:30 PM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 149 by Tal, posted 07-20-2005 9:52 AM FliesOnly has replied

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


Message 146 of 271 (224675)
07-19-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by FliesOnly
07-19-2005 3:15 PM


Re: Rove should stay
WTF are you talking about? Since when did this thread become a court of law. I have an opinion, which is that Karl Rove will do whatever it takes to win. You know it, I know it, hell anybody that has followed George Bush's political career knows it, so get down off you high and mighty horse, I really don't need to be told that I have no basis.
Well, all you’ve really said is that you don’t like what I said. You don’t have a basis for your assertion that Rove should be fired other than what may have occurred in past elections. I suggested that you start a new thread and post all of the other info, if that interest you. But in this thread, saying you don’t like it, doesn’t hold much water. But that’s the way it goes sometime, the facts don’t support your position and you need to learn to live with those facts. You haven’t provided a basis and that’s what I was pointing out. You don’t like that, Ok.
What I cannot for the life of me understand is why you feel that he should not be fired. It really is quite simple. He was involved in the leaking of a CIA agent’s name. That much we know. President Bush was asked if he'd fire anyone involved in the leak and replied that yes, he would. So why are we even having this discussion?
I’ve said it many times. He shouldn’t be fired because he hasn’t done anything wrong. It really is quite simple. He was involved in a telephone conversation with a reporter when that reporter asked him about Wilson’s trip. Cooper contacted Rove. Novak contacted Rove. Reporters were contacting Rove to ask him about Wilson. Rove was reacting to that. Now if Rove lied to the grand jury, that’s another story. But that hasn’t been proven.
Honestly Monk, why is it so important to you that Karl Rove not be punished for what he did? I am, at this point, not really interested in the legalities of it all...I have said this in previous posts. I am after the President to show us some of that integrity that he seems to claim so often. He said he would fire anyone involved, so shut up and fire him already.
You want honesty, yet you deny it when it stares you in the face. I know you said you are not interested in the legalities. But 3 weeks ago, everyone on the left with few exceptions were asking me how I could defend someone who had committed a crime. How I could claim that Plame wasn’t covert at the time of the Rove discussions with Cooper. Now, I don’t get those questions anymore. Instead, I get comments like yours by people who aren’t interested in legalities. It was a different story 3 weeks ago.
What are we talking about here? Whether or not he leaked a covert spies name or just that he leaked an agent’s name. You see, to me this makes no difference on whether or not the President should do what he said he would do, which was to fire Karl Rove.
What we are talking about is that Rove didn’t leak the name at all. The reporters had already heard it elsewhere and were asking Rove if he new about it to which he replied, Yea, I heard that also. You see, when you leak a name, first, you need to use the name. Second, you need to be proactive and actually go out and leak the name.
What I loathe are people that will stop to nothing to defend someone. Again, Karl Rove leaked the name, and he should be fired for it. Why is that such a bad thing?
Rove shouldn’t be fired. He didn’t do anything wrong. Your loathing is obvious and since loathing is synonymous with hatred, it’s a bad thing because it tends to blind one to the truth in front of their nose. They are loathe to see it.
Let me ask you. Why should Bush do anything about Rove until the Fitzgerald report is made public? Why take any action until all the facts are known?
This message has been edited by Monk, Tue, 07-19-2005 05:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by FliesOnly, posted 07-19-2005 3:15 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by FliesOnly, posted 07-20-2005 10:42 AM Monk has replied

  
Meeb
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 271 (224698)
07-19-2005 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Monk
07-19-2005 2:50 PM


Re: Rove should stay
Notice I said "Democratic celebrities". The term celebrity may not necessarilly mean we are only speaking of actors.
Notice that you used the term "movie producers":
It was a reference to all movie producers as a group and that not all, but a majority of them have political views that are decidedly left of center, in other words, holding more positions in support of Democratic politicians and policies.
when I say Hollywood I mean those individuals living somewhere in southern California who are involved in making movies.
So, what does Sheryl Crow, Peter Buck, Michael Stipe, CCH Pounder, and Moby are doing in your little blacklist?
Regarding the list. You asked for it so I gave it to you.
I asked you for names of producers, you gave a modern day blacklist.
Maybe you believe there is no political bias at all and "Hollywood" types are not political at all.
Or maybe you just don't see the movies you like. Get over it.
But my original point was that some group in Hollywood is going to make a movie about the Wilson story and when they do, Wilson and his wife will make a bundle.
And once again I ask: Where is the source for this? Did GWB get any money for "DC 9/11"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Monk, posted 07-19-2005 2:50 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Monk, posted 07-19-2005 7:21 PM Meeb has not replied

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


Message 148 of 271 (224703)
07-19-2005 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Meeb
07-19-2005 7:09 PM


Re: Rove should stay
I see you dodged my questions. Care to address them now?
Why should Bush do anything about Rove until the Fitzgerald report is made public and the facts are known?
What is your assessment of the majority political view in Hollywood? Which is it? Left, Right or Neutral?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Meeb, posted 07-19-2005 7:09 PM Meeb has not replied

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


Message 149 of 271 (224860)
07-20-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by FliesOnly
07-19-2005 3:15 PM


Re: Rove should stay
President Bush was asked if he'd fire anyone involved in the leak and replied that yes, he would.
Wrong.
What it doesn’t change is that our President said he would fire anyone involved in the leak, so that is what he should do.
Wrong.
It is ok though, because I know why you think this is factual. It is because of the IDIOTS in the press. Here was a question asked by one of these morons yesterday.
"Mr. President, you said you don't want to talk about an ongoing investigation, so I would like to ask you regardless of whether a crime was committed, do you still intend to fire anyone found to be involved in the CIA leak case?"
Here are the quotes from President Bush.
Sep 30
quote:
If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And, if the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.
Bush a couple of days ago
quote:
And if someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration.
Hey MR REPORTER! Why can I do your job better than you can? Is it that you simply can't interpret english?
Flies,
Care to adjust your statements to reflect the truth yet?
This message has been edited by Tal, 07-20-2005 10:18 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 145 by FliesOnly, posted 07-19-2005 3:15 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by FliesOnly, posted 07-20-2005 12:06 PM Tal has not replied

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


Message 150 of 271 (224868)
07-20-2005 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Monk
07-19-2005 5:30 PM


Re: Rove should stay
Monk writes:
Well, all you’ve really said is that you don’t like what I said. You don’t have a basis for your assertion that Rove should be fired other than what may have occurred in past elections.
But I do have a basis for my assertion Monk, and it's called history. He a political strategists and during the campaigns he's been involved in, terrible things are said about the opposition. And I'm talking over and above what we use to find acceptable(McCain's black child and the swift boat ads, just to name a couple). Why should I believe anything different this time?
Monk writes:
I suggested that you start a new thread and post all of the other info, if that interest you.
I have no desire to start another thread because it will simply turn into a "yes he did...no he didn't" argument. You know his history so let's just both admit he will do whatever it takes to win. You are apparently ok with that, while I find it sad (on both sides by the way, it's NOT a partisan issue with me).
Monk writes:
It really is quite simple. He was involved in a telephone conversation with a reporter when that reporter asked him about Wilson’s trip.
And he leaked her "name".
Monk writes:
You want honesty, yet you deny it when it stares you in the face. I know you said you are not interested in the legalities. But 3 weeks ago, everyone on the left with few exceptions were asking me how I could defend someone who had committed a crime. How I could claim that Plame wasn’t covert at the time of the Rove discussions with Cooper. Now, I don’t get those questions anymore. Instead, I get comments like yours by people who aren’t interested in legalities. It was a different story 3 weeks ago.
I could care less about what other people said or how the felt three weeks ago. The President said he would fire anyone involved with the leak. Karl Rove was most certainly involved. It's simple.
Monk writes:
You see, when you leak a name, first, you need to use the name.
So by your logic, if someone said that: "the person you are looking for is FliesOnly's wife"; that would not be considered leaking her name because they did not actually use her name? How bizarre.
Monk writes:
Second, you need to be proactive and actually go out and leak the name.
So by your logic, if someone asks a question and you know the answer, but also know it's something that you should not share, it's actually ok because hey, they asked. How bizarre.
Monk writes:
Your loathing is obvious and since loathing is synonymous with hatred, it’s a bad thing because it tends to blind one to the truth in front of their nose.
As does love. Your love of Karl Rove is obvious when you defend someone that has acted in such an appalling manner.
Monk writes:
Let me ask you. Why should Bush do anything about Rove until the Fitzgerald report is made public? Why take any action until all the facts are known?
Fine, lets wait. If, however, it is found that no crime was committed but that Karl Rove, nonetheless, revealed Plame's name, do you agree that he should be fired...as President Bush said he would do to anyone involved in the affair (I'm just curious as to how far you will go to keep Rove in the White House)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Monk, posted 07-19-2005 5:30 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Monk, posted 07-20-2005 11:20 AM FliesOnly 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