http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

It looks like Karl Rove is behind the leak of the Valerie Plume affair (outting a CIA agent, and then lying about it during a grand jury investigation).  It's been suspected for quite some time that he was connected.  The reason the court issued the suponea for the reporters?  You need two witnesses for a perjury connection.

Let's see the Clinton haters who claimed his perjury conviction should have caused his impeachment down play this.

Let's see the Clinton haters who claimed his perjury conviction should have caused his impeachment down play this.


easy....Karl Rove isnt president

Don't bet on it.

There is a reason why Rove is rerfered to as Bush's Brain.

He's way too untouchable and freaking powerful, if he goes down he'll take almost everyone down with him, kicking and screaming.

Karl Rove most likely commited perjury


I'm far more concerned with his act of treason than I am with his lying about it. 

I'm far more concerned with his act of treason than I am with his lying about it. 


and that is the more serious charge...and the one people should be concerning themselves with. 

But, treason it seems these days goes unnoticed...case in point: John Kerry broke the Logan Act...which is a treasonous offence.  I didnt hear anyone on either side say a thing.  No one, except for one LIBERAL professor of mine right after the election when he knew it would cause no harm.   

Rove?  As the folks back home say, "what do you expect from a pig but a grunt?"
Big Karl is part of the fascist campaign to rollback the American social contract to 1929.  The Republicans will fight tooth-and-nail to keep Karl out of the doghouse.  Any law convenient for Karl to break is a law worth striking from the books anyway.

Robert Novak declared when the Enron guys were being carted away, "I don't like seeing businessmen treated as common criminals!"  That's how these piggie-wiggies think.  I hate to classify it as a red state attitude, but look at what that Alabama jury let that dirty crook Richard Scrushy of HealthSouth get away with last week!
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/28/news/newsmakers/scrushy_outcome/?cnn=yes
If Scrushy had been a seventeen year old black kid who held up a Circle K in Montgomery,  they'da nailed his hide to the wall, and he'd never see daylight again on the outside, my friends!
The message is clear: If you're a rich, conservative white man working on behalf of making the rich richer, you can do no wrong.  To make a white collar pirate do a perp walk is like making the queen scrub the floor!

I really hope he is going down-and he takes a few others with him.




Cat

and that is the more serious charge...and the one people should be concerning themselves with. 

But, treason it seems these days goes unnoticed...case in point: John Kerry broke the Logan Act...which is a treasonous offence.  I didnt hear anyone on either side say a thing.  No one, except for one LIBERAL professor of mine right after the election when he knew it would cause no harm.   


I am much less concerned with these reletively petty offences of "treason." I think the greatest treason is selling out the people to whom you have sworn an oath, to the calibre that Dubya has.

Dubya is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands thanks to an illegal war begun under false pretenses. You know the spiel. He is the ultimate traitor... worst we've had since Arnold, IMHO.

Kerry's youthfully (and hopelessly) optimistic attempt to have American POWs released by attempting to negotiate with the North Vietnamese (while he had no authority to do so) was undeniably stupid, but done with nothing but a genuine love for his contrymen nonetheless. I look at this attempt as far more patriotic than anything Dubya can ever hope to do (except maybe admit guilt and resign). And at least no one was killed or even harmed.

Dubya is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands


Current Iraqi civilian deaths: 22,787
Current American deaths: 1,745

Hmm....Britain must have lost a lot of soldiers for the deaths to be in the hundreds of thousands.

an illegal war...

Still repeating that lie?

Did Bush go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war like the constitution reads?  Did Congress give Bush is declaration of war?  No on both counts.

Yeah, it's an illegal war.

Did Bush go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war like the constitution reads?  Did Congress give Bush is declaration of war?  No on both counts.

Yeah, it's an illegal war.

That's something strict constructionalists should be railing about, but they don't.  They're only strict constructionalists when it comes to the courts granting rights to people they don't like.

The congress DID authorize Bush to go to war making it technically legal without a formal declaration.  It turns out the whole thing was a pack of lies, but congress is full of cowards.

Back to Karl Rove.  He leaked Valerie Plames name, we know it, congress knows it, bushie knows it,
and nothing is being done...yet.  There has to be someone who will step up and not let up the heat.  Now that bushies political capital is almost spent it is possible that rove will take a tumble, but he is a brillliant
strategist and may worm his way out of this.  If he does he will be worse than ever.

Back to Karl Rove.  He leaked Valerie Plames name, we know it, congress knows it, bushie knows it,
and nothing is being done...yet.  There has to be someone who will step up and not let up the heat.  Now that bushies political capital is almost spent it is possible that rove will take a tumble, but he is a brillliant
strategist and may worm his way out of this.  If he does he will be worse than ever.


He can't tumble out of this if he's convicted of treason.  Treason is punishable by death. I doubt they'll ever convict him of full blown treason, not with the Republican majority in as control of as much as they are.

He hasn't been labeled a suspect yet, but he isn't being labled a witness yet either.  A fine distinction.  If the DA was referring to him as a witness, that would mean there is no chance that he was involved in criminal behavior.

In the last 50 years or so, candals always break in a president's second term.  This one has been simering for quite some time.  Revealing a CIA agent as political payback for political gain is pretty underhanded, and probably a worse offense than even the crap Nixon pulled.

I'm sure Rove will get nailed in some fashion for it, but I'm sure they won't be able to tie it directly to Bush or Cheney.  That's the truly disgusting aspect.  It's highly unlikely Rove was acting on his own, without being signed off by one of those two.

Current Iraqi civilian deaths: 22,787
Current American deaths: 1,745

Hmm....Britain must have lost a lot of soldiers for the deaths to be in the hundreds of thousands.

Still repeating that lie?



Well now all we need to do is add up all the Afghanis, the peasants of third world countries where Dubya's administration refused to have their corporate buddies investigated for human rights violations... We'll add the deaths of 9/11... Are we getting close to a hundred thousand yet? If not, then I apologise for the exagguration, but one person, frankly, is too many. If I killed over 24,000 people, don't you think I would deserve some punishment?

I am much less concerned with these reletively petty offences of "treason." I think the greatest treason is selling out the people to whom you have sworn an oath, to the calibre that Dubya has.




youve got to be kidding me.  No act of treason is petty. 

And show me exactly what American laws Bush broke that constitute committing treason. 

Well now all we need to do is add up all the Afghanis, the peasants of third world countries where Dubya's administration refused to have their corporate buddies investigated for human rights violations... We'll add the deaths of 9/11... Are we getting close to a hundred thousand yet? If not, then I apologise for the exagguration, but one person, frankly, is too many. If I killed over 24,000 people, don't you think I would deserve some punishment?



Youre really blaming Bush for the deaths of 9/11?  God forbid we blame the people who should be blamed for it...like Al Qaeda and Osama

n early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the time that any suggestion that Rove had played a role in outing Plame was "totally ridiculous." On Oct. 10, McClellan was asked directly if Rove and two other White House aides had ever discussed Valerie Plame with any reporters. McClellan said he had spoken with all three, and "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."

That's perjury folks.  It's probably the easiest charge to stick to Rove, and the one most likely to be persued.

That's why the lead prosecuter is not content with the records, and wants testimony still.

n early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the time that any suggestion that Rove had played a role in outing Plame was "totally ridiculous." On Oct. 10, McClellan was asked directly if Rove and two other White House aides had ever discussed Valerie Plame with any reporters. McClellan said he had spoken with all three, and "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."

That's perjury folks.  It's probably the easiest charge to stick to Rove, and the one most likely to be persued.

That's why the lead prosecuter is not content with the records, and wants testimony still.


I believe it is only perjury if it is under oath before a court.  Other than that it is just lying.

I believe it is only perjury if it is under oath before a court.  Other than that it is just lying.


well, that's where he did it, while being questioned about the Valarie Plume affair. 

well, that's where he did it, while being questioned about the Valarie Plume affair. 


not under oath in a court.  and it seems in that article, that Rove wasnt even interviewed.  It was Scott Mcclellan.  Meaning it's hearsay. 

At most, the only charge for Rove at this point is obstruction of justice...possbily.


Now, if what is said is correct, then I believe it could fall under treason.  Because he gave out the name of an undercover CIA officer.  Possibly.  Id need to check the laws on that one. 

Youre really blaming Bush for the deaths of 9/11?  God forbid we blame the people who should be blamed for it...like Al Qaeda and Osama


Tell that to Bush.  He's the one still blaming Sadaam and Iraq for 9/11.

I agree....this is much worse than getting a hummer in the oval office and lying about it....besides, I'd like ANYONE to name 1 politician who HASN'T lied ::)


Absolutely right(again).  bushies lies have cost lives without any justification.  roves outing of a CIA agent
is treason.  Tomorrow is the 142 anniversary of the Gettysburg Address perhaps it is time to remind the
bush whitheouse that the government is "of the people, by the people and for the people' , and not a government to serve and enrich the few and carry out personal vendettas.

Tell that to Bush.  He's the one still blaming Sadaam and Iraq for 9/11.



so you want to be just as bad by blaming the wrong person too

Current Iraqi civilian deaths: 22,787
Current American deaths: 1,745

Hmm....Britain must have lost a lot of soldiers for the deaths to be in the hundreds of thousands.

Still repeating that lie?



Let me just point out that Iraqi civilian deaths were not reported during the "shock and awe" portion of the war, you remember, when we bombed the living crap out for them.  Nor does this 22,787 include the residual deaths from "natural causes" hightend by the war.  In fact, the number of civilian casualties were not counted, on purpose.

I believe it is only perjury if it is under oath before a court.  Other than that it is just lying.


I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that Rove testified, presumably under oath, before the grand jury investigating this affair.  If he lied, that would constitute purjury, he could have taken the 5th (and maybe he did).  It is a crime to out a CIA agent, but it might not be treason, in a strick sense.

not under oath in a court.  and it seems in that article, that Rove wasnt even interviewed.  It was Scott Mcclellan.  Meaning it's hearsay. 

At most, the only charge for Rove at this point is obstruction of justice...possbily.


Now, if what is said is correct, then I believe it could fall under treason.  Because he gave out the name of an undercover CIA officer.  Possibly.  Id need to check the laws on that one. 


fine, here's a news article that says he testified about it, not once, not twice, but thrice!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002356504_rove03.html

Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff and longtime political strategist, has testified before a grand jury investigating the Plame case on three occasions. His latest appearance was in October 2004, about the same time the prosecutor investigating the case has said his investigation was complete with the exception of Cooper's and Miller's testimony.

it's not like Rove didn't think about doing this (if he's to be believed).

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/03/waas-m-03-08.html

President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, told the FBI in an interview last October that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists, according to a government official and an attorney familiar with the ongoing special counsel's investigation of the matter.

But he insists he wasn't the one who leaked it first.  Well, he discusses it with others before it occured, so clearly he must have planted the seeds with one of the neocon weasels.

Face it, Rove is guilty of putting this scheme together.  He's even admitted as such to the FBI!  He's at the very least, guilty of conspiring to commit treason.  He's admitted to creating the plan, and it just happens to occur, but he's not responsible?

What's truly sickening, is that even if they convict the slimeball, Bush will pardon him in a second.

What's truly sickening, is that even if they convict the slimebal (Rove)l, Bush will pardon him in a second.



He does have that power, but I suspect he is too much of a self preservationist to do it.  It would be political suicide.  On the other hand, he might just be stupid enough to try to get away with it.  Even conservatives would have to screem bloody murder.

Youre really blaming Bush for the deaths of 9/11?  God forbid we blame the people who should be blamed for it...like Al Qaeda and Osama


Yeah, I think he deserves plenty of blame seeing as how it's his job to make sure it doesn't happen. Knowing what we now know, I'd say he was derelict in his duties.

And God forbid even further that we actually catch Osama.

youve got to be kidding me.  No act of treason is petty. 

And show me exactly what American laws Bush broke that constitute committing treason. 


I'm not kidding. The government can apply the label of "treason" to anything it wants, and anything it doesn't want to be treason, well, isn't. Kerry broke a law which dates back to the early 19th century... Bush is breaking "laws" which are fundamentals of human civilisation and have been since civilisation began. I don't care if Kerry tried to get some American POWs released by talking to the North Vietnamese. Hell, I'd even go as far as to call it honourable, however idiotic it was. We were the agressors in that war to begin with, getting innocent young Americans killed just like what Bush is doing today. I am much more concerned with the rising death toll in Iraq, which is a war that (now, thanks to the Downing St. memo and also just plain common sense) we all know was BULLshhh! Whether or not you feel like admitting it, and whether or not the American justice system is competent enough to be able to do anything about it, George W. Bush is a despicable liar and murderer who deserves to be locked up.

Just because the c0cksucker's the president doesn't make him exempt from such accountabilities. You lie your way into a war and send your own people to die and to kill others for your greed... That's just egregious. That is what I will call treason no matter how "legal" it happens to be.

I'm not kidding. The government can apply the label of "treason" to anything it wants, and anything it doesn't want to be treason, well, isn't. Kerry broke a law which dates back to the early 19th century... Bush is breaking "laws" which are fundamentals of human civilisation and have been since civilisation began. I don't care if Kerry tried to get some American POWs released by talking to the North Vietnamese. Hell, I'd even go as far as to call it honourable, however idiotic it was. We were the agressors in that war to begin with, getting innocent young Americans killed just like what Bush is doing today. I am much more concerned with the rising death toll in Iraq, which is a war that (now, thanks to the Downing St. memo and also just plain common sense) we all know was BULLshhh! Whether or not you feel like admitting it, and whether or not the American justice system is competent enough to be able to do anything about it, George W. Bush is a despicable liar and murderer who deserves to be locked up.

Just because the c0cksucker's the president doesn't make him exempt from such accountabilities. You lie your way into a war and send your own people to die and to kill others for your greed... That's just egregious. That is what I will call treason no matter how "legal" it happens to be.


treason is treason. 


But yet, youve yet to give me exact laws that Bush has violated that would be considered treasonous.  Yes, he lied to the people.  Every politician, including every president has done the same thing.  its something we come to expect and to think otherwise is just naive (though obviously that doesnt make lying right.  But its hardly treasonous).  Also, remember, I dont like Bush and I didnt vote for him and I dont support the Iraqi war....but I dont feel there was anything treasonous that he has done.  Please, if you know of some act, enlighten me. 

Yeah, I think he deserves plenty of blame seeing as how it's his job to make sure it doesn't happen. Knowing what we now know, I'd say he was derelict in his duties.

And God forbid even further that we actually catch Osama.


Blaming the victim?  "But that women was wearing sexy clothing, she was asking to be raped!"

Who do you blame more?

Blaming the victim?  "But that women was wearing sexy clothing, she was asking to be raped!"

Who do you blame more?


Lil' Georgie is hardly a victim, and blaming him for his lapses, lies, stupidity, arrogance, and incomprehension is hardly the same as blaming a rape victim for being raped.  I would have thought you would have know better, and not stooped so low.

Lil' Georgie is hardly a victim, and blaming him for his lapses, lies, stupidity, arrogance, and incomprehension is hardly the same as blaming a rape victim for being raped.  I would have thought you would have know better, and not stooped so low.


I'm glad you would have expected better from him. As for myself... well, just call me disillusioned.

treason is treason. 


But yet, youve yet to give me exact laws that Bush has violated that would be considered treasonous.  Yes, he lied to the people.  Every politician, including every president has done the same thing.  its something we come to expect and to think otherwise is just naive (though obviously that doesnt make lying right.  But its hardly treasonous).  Also, remember, I dont like Bush and I didnt vote for him and I dont support the Iraqi war....but I dont feel there was anything treasonous that he has done.  Please, if you know of some act, enlighten me. 




No, treason is not treason, except for in the mind of someonel who deals in only absolutes (or perhaps just when absolutes suit his argument). If all acts of treason were created equal, then all punishments for treason would be the same. So let me ask you if you think the treason John Kerry is supposedly guilty of would catch him the death penalty the way the Rosenbergs' treason did. If "treason is treason" then the punishment for treason would remain constant, because no one act of treason would be any lesser than another, be it murder, espionage, or simply having a conversation with the wrong person. Unless of course some acts of treason are worse than others, in which case different punishments would have to be issued for different severities in "treason," and in which case your assertion is just completely false. 

I thought I made it quite clear that legally speaking, Bush has committed not act of treason. Legally speaking because he is the president, he is allowed to put our troops in harm's way as much as he wants no matter what his reasons. But if his reasons are wanton and selfish and of no benefit to the country at large but only to himself, if he lies his way into a superfluous conflict which gets his own countrymen killed... then as far as I'm concerned, he is a traitor. That isn't to say that he will ever be tried for his crimes against humanity (that's *humanity,* not American law), just that I see what I see and deduce accordingly. I am much more concerned with Bush's treason to the American people (not to mention the human species) than with Kerry's to American law.

No, treason is not treason, except for in the mind of someonel who deals in only absolutes (or perhaps just when absolutes suit his argument). If all acts of treason were created equal, then all punishments for treason would be the same. So let me ask you if you think the treason John Kerry is supposedly guilty of would catch him the death penalty the way the Rosenbergs' treason did. If "treason is treason" then the punishment for treason would remain constant, because no one act of treason would be any lesser than another, be it murder, espionage, or simply having a conversation with the wrong person. Unless of course some acts of treason are worse than others, in which case different punishments would have to be issued for different severities in "treason," and in which case your assertion is just completely false. 

I thought I made it quite clear that legally speaking, Bush has committed not act of treason. Legally speaking because he is the president, he is allowed to put our troops in harm's way as much as he wants no matter what his reasons. But if his reasons are wanton and selfish and of no benefit to the country at large but only to himself, if he lies his way into a superfluous conflict which gets his own countrymen killed... then as far as I'm concerned, he is a traitor. That isn't to say that he will ever be tried for his crimes against humanity (that's *humanity,* not American law), just that I see what I see and deduce accordingly. I am much more concerned with Bush's treason to the American people (not to mention the human species) than with Kerry's to American law.


Why do you think Bush has refuised to bercome a part of the International Court of Justice?  Clearly, he and his staff, along with good old Henry the K, Admiral Poindexter, and lots of others, would be subject to prosecution.

An excellent point.

Treason never succeeeds, for when it does, none dare call it treason, or as Ben said in 1776, responding to Hancock, "Yes, we must all hang together, or most certainly we will all hang seperately."

No, treason is not treason, except for in the mind of someonel who deals in only absolutes (or perhaps just when absolutes suit his argument). If all acts of treason were created equal, then all punishments for treason would be the same. So let me ask you if you think the treason John Kerry is supposedly guilty of would catch him the death penalty the way the Rosenbergs' treason did. If "treason is treason" then the punishment for treason would remain constant, because no one act of treason would be any lesser than another, be it murder, espionage, or simply having a conversation with the wrong person. Unless of course some acts of treason are worse than others, in which case different punishments would have to be issued for different severities in "treason," and in which case your assertion is just completely false. 

yes, you are right.  There are different degrees of treason.  And violation of each degree grants different punishments.  But that doesnt mean that act is still not TREASON! 


I thought I made it quite clear that legally speaking, Bush has committed not act of treason.

That's the point I was trying to make.  He has committed NO ACTS OF TREASON

  But if his reasons are wanton and selfish and of no benefit to the country at large but only to himself, if he lies his way into a superfluous conflict which gets his own countrymen killed... then as far as I'm concerned, he is a traitor.

as far as you're concerned?  It doesnt matter if you think that what he's done should be called treason, it isnt.  If we start calling lying treason, then I say, welcome to 1984!  There are laws for a reason, and there are limits on laws for a reason. 

yes, you are right.  There are different degrees of treason.  And violation of each degree grants different punishments.  But that doesnt mean that act is still not TREASON! 
That's the point I was trying to make.  He has committed NO ACTS OF TREASON
as far as you're concerned?  It doesnt matter if you think that what he's done should be called treason, it isnt.  If we start calling lying treason, then I say, welcome to 1984!  There are laws for a reason, and there are limits on laws for a reason. 


''Lil' Georgie may not have commited trewason, but he has certainly commited "high crimes and misdomenors" for wqhich he sould he impeaced, convicted, and turned out of office, as should his vp.

as far as you're concerned?  It doesnt matter if you think that what he's done should be called treason, it isnt.  If we start calling lying treason, then I say, welcome to 1984!  There are laws for a reason, and there are limits on laws for a reason. 


"Lying" is a gross oversimplification of what Bush has done. He has knowingly sent American men and women to their deaths for money. I say it's a safe bet to call him a traitor for that, any day of the week. Lying is venial compared to that. Lying was just something he had to do first; the means to an end and it's the end that I call treason. I don't see the point in pointing out more than once that, technically speaking, legally speaking, we can't charge him for treason. Doing that is just contentious (not to mention redundant). Nevertheless, I maintain that there is more to treason than its legal definition. George Bush sold out his own compatriots... that makes him a traitor. 

And, as the White House promised, theyr'e going to fire him right?  I'm holding my breath - but not for too long.  Notice that McClellan is no longer claiming Rove's innocence, just refusing to comment "on an ongoinbg investigation".  Yeah, right.

And, as the White House promised, theyr'e going to fire him right?  I'm holding my breath - but not for too long.  Notice that McClellan is no longer claiming Rove's innocence, just refusing to comment "on an ongoinbg investigation".  Yeah, right.


they asked Bush point blank today, since yesterday Scotty McClean refused to answer for him.

He responded with silence.  No surprise there.

they asked Bush point blank today, since yesterday Scotty McClean refused to answer for him.

He responded with silence.  No surprise there.


Looks like ol' Karl is going down.  He did this crap at least once before, when he leaked stuff about Lil' Georgie's cocaine use to (I forgot his name) the guy who wrote Fortunate Son and then exposed him to discredit him.  Sooner otr later these slime-buckets get themselves into trouble.  Guess Rove thinks that he will be protected.  I guess we  shall see.

Looks like ol' Karl is going down.  He did this crap at least once before, when he leaked stuff about Lil' Georgie's cocaine use to (I forgot his name) the guy who wrote Fortunate Son and then exposed him to discredit him.  Sooner otr later these slime-buckets get themselves into trouble.  Guess Rove thinks that he will be protected.  I guess we  shall see.


well I guess the reason no one talked yesterday, is they didn't know where to take their cues from

the RNC chairman had this to say today:

It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party. The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks.

The false story here, is the yellowcake story, that was confirmed as false after the invasion of Iraq.  So the spin here, is that Rove was trying to discourage a reporter from using Valarie Plume's husband as a source for this story, since they think his wife clearly got him the job.  They couldn't attack him personally, couldn't say he was unqualified, or his methods of investigation were suspect, they had to attack his wife.

I bet the TV news people however will be more than happy to repeat this lie.  Or maybe not.  Since one of their own is now in jail due to Karl's attempts at politicial sabotage via the press freedom of speech, we're seeing them go on the attack.  Even the Fox News hacks yesterday continued to ask questions about Rove.

well I guess the reason no one talked yesterday, is they didn't know where to take their cues from

the RNC chairman had this to say today:

It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party. The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks.

The false story here, is the yellowcake story, that was confirmed as false after the invasion of Iraq.  So the spin here, is that Rove was trying to discourage a reporter from using Valarie Plume's husband as a source for this story, since they think his wife clearly got him the job.  They couldn't attack him personally, couldn't say he was unqualified, or his methods of investigation were suspect, they had to attack his wife.

I bet the TV news people however will be more than happy to repeat this lie.  Or maybe not.  Since one of their own is now in jail due to Karl's attempts at politicial sabotage via the press freedom of speech, we're seeing them go on the attack.  Even the Fox News hacks yesterday continued to ask questions about Rove.

All I have to say is if the same thing happened in the Clinton White House impeachment hearings would be underway already and a half dozen people would already be locked up, with a half dozen more on the way to the slammer!
The Democrats have to realize the press is not on their side.  It's full of obsequious brown-nosers as typified by Tim Russert.  All those clowns practically wear signs that say, "I Love Wealth and Power!"
The Dems have to take the bull by the b@lls!  They have to realize there's no negotiating with the Right.  It's like negotiating with a wolverine.  The only difference is, the wolverine never tells you he's just a Cocker Spaniel!
::)

All I have to say is if the same thing happened in the Clinton White House impeachment hearings would be underway already and a half dozen people would already be locked up, with a half dozen more on the way to the slammer!
The Democrats have to realize the press is not on their side.  It's full of obsequious brown-nosers as typified by Tim Russert.  All those clowns practically wear signs that say, "I Love Wealth and Power!"
The Dems have to take the bull by the b@lls!  They have to realize there's no negotiating with the Right.  It's like negotiating with a wolverine.  The only difference is, the wolverine never tells you he's just a Cocker Spaniel!
::)


well, I think you'll find that when one of their own is on the line, the press suddenly gets on your side very quickly.

I heard Rush devoted an entire show to why this isn't an important issue.  Irony is clearly not a word he's familar with.

The Republicans did release their talking poiints memo on the subject (even though Scotty claims they can't comment on an ongoing investigation) and some of the interesting lies are things like "she wasn't important" or "she was active ten years ago, not now" which ignore basic facts, like the revelation blew the cover of an entire CIA front agency, putting untold numbers of other agents at risk.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

classmate of Valarie Plume's speaks out about what kind of cover she most likely had. 

The GOP released a statement on Rove that was a bigger joke than anything the Onion publishes.

well, I think you'll find that when one of their own is on the line, the press suddenly gets on your side very quickly.

I heard Rush devoted an entire show to why this isn't an important issue.  Irony is clearly not a word he's familar with.

The Republicans did release their talking poiints memo on the subject (even though Scotty claims they can't comment on an ongoing investigation) and some of the interesting lies are things like "she wasn't important" or "she was active ten years ago, not now" which ignore basic facts, like the revelation blew the cover of an entire CIA front agency, putting untold numbers of other agents at risk.

Scotty said to one member of the press corps, "this is not the appropriate time to discuss this issue."  Well, he's a member of the press, and this is a press conference, isn't it?  WTF!  No wonder this administration is so secretive and holds so few press conferences.  They're a bunch of sleazeballs and crooks!

I have to say that I truly admire Judith Miller. But what I don't get is why her? She NEVER wrote about it. I really don't understand why they are going after her and not Bob Novak. I guess they are going after the "liberal press". But it really sends a dangerous precedence. It is already happening.


http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050713/NEWS/507130310/1018/OPINION


This is also an interesting article.


http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050713/NEWS/507130323/1039/OPINION03




Cat

The scramble is on.  Karl got caught in one of his "off the record" little suarees and, id Lil' Georgie is ture to his word, will be banished (yeah, right) to a lucrative job at some neocon think tank that will be paid by the Repug national committee (but he WAS fired!).  No criminal charges will be brought, and the whole matter wll be swept under that VERY big rug in the "offal" office.  How can they stand the smell?

Here is the latest "bull dung of the day" from good ol Karl...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=2&u=/ap/20050715/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_rove

Just how stupid does this operator think we are? 

Karl Rove is lying, Bob Novak is lying.  The difference is those two men sold their souls to satan, and Miller and Cooper did not.  Thus the former two are untouchable, and the latter two get hanged.
When Mephistophales emerges to claim the souls of Rove and Novak, I don't know.

If I had my 'druthers, Bush and his entire phony cabinet would resign.  Karl Rove would be consigned to a sub-basement of the White House to play Toccata and Fugue on the pipe organ!
:D

Just reading the latest twists in this story make your head spin.  What's really sad, is to see the lame excuses from the neocons supporting this behavoir.  So far it can be determined, that without a doubt Karl Rove lied about his involvement, and knew he lied when he did it.  That's not hard to confirm. 

Whether Rove's the source responsible for the outing in the administration, still remains to be seen.  The latest spin from the right, that the reporter told Rove, is just the most laughable defense.  Two different reporters had the same story on the same day.  The likelihood that they passed a huge story between them is unlikely, so clearly someone passed it to them.

Karl Rove is lying, Bob Novak is lying.  The difference is those two men sold their souls to satan, and Miller and Cooper did not.  Thus the former two are untouchable, and the latter two get hanged.
When Mephistophales emerges to claim the souls of Rove and Novak, I don't know.

If I had my 'druthers, Bush and his entire phony cabinet would resign.  Karl Rove would be consigned to a sub-basement of the White House to play Toccata and Fugue on the pipe organ!
:D



If I had my druthers, Bush and his entire phone cabinet would be sitting in a jail cell.




Cat

Ok.  Lets run down the essential facts.

Bush (or whoever) accuses Iraq of trying to buy yellow cake from Niger.  Plame suggests her husband (a former diplomate with lots of experiance in both Africa and the Middle East) be sent to investigate.  Somebody up the chain of command agrees.  He gets the job and finds the story to be false.  He is ignored.  He goes public.  White House leeks allow Bob Novak to out her as a CIA agent, which is suppose to cast doubt on Wilson's comments.  An investigation is launched to find the leek.

Now let me be plain.  I have no great love for the CIA (although I did like I Spy, admitting my age  ;).  But for the life of me I can't get why for liberals, moderates and conservatives the fact that one's wife was a CIA agent would be any kind of a disability, would cast doubt on his integrity, or would call either his intelligence or patriotism into question.  If the implication was just nepotism, so what?  What about Tom DeLay? 

So now Plame, and her associates, contacts, sources are all put in potential danger because Joe Wilson was not a lap dog.  Heads should roll.

Well, my friends, here is the lastest in the continuing saga of "How the Rove Churns"


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20050717/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050717/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation



Ah yes, the plot thickens.




Cat

And the Rove worm turns, and the stench spreads, and as I pointed out above, the partisan implications are clear.  Warergate?  Contragate?  Plamegate anyone?  And I notice our conservative friends are silent. 

This freaking story makes my head spin.  It's the most convoluted bunch of he said-she said to come down the pike since Monicagate.  It reminds me of the spiraling rumors going around my school in the eighth grade! 

Is there or is there not proof the Rove leaked Plame's name to the journalists before journalists leaked Plame's name to Rove?
Furthermore, why is Novak getting off scot free?

Can't somebody stop the spinning gossip machine before I get siiiiick!

http://www2.eckerd.com/images/site/photos/vomiting.jpg

Is there or is there not proof the Rove leaked Plame's name to the journalists before journalists leaked Plame's name to Rove?
Furthermore, why is Novak getting off scot free?


Novak in 2003 said the names were leaked to him, not the other way around:

http://foi.missouri.edu/voicesdissent/columnistnames.html

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

The reason your head is spinning, is because the neocons have been inventing convient lies to try and make this issue look like it's the media's fault.  Since Novak has clammed up on the subject, they right is free to invent lies, and make him out to be the bad guy.  While Novak is a tool of the right (always has been), we at least have his past statements to look at.  Unless he lied. 

We can look at Rove's past statements on the subject, but clearly the reporters have pointed out that he did talk to them, despite his assurances that he hadn't.  He lied. He lied to the press afterwards, he lied to a grand jury.

add Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff to the list of people who leaked the name.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0507180216jul18,1,2768571.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

I'm sure Bush will have no problems with firing this individual too. 

add Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff to the list of people who leaked the name.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0507180216jul18,1,2768571.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

I'm sure Bush will have no problems with firing this individual too. 

I never liked that Lewis "Scooter" Libby.  Maybe it's because "Scooter" was the name of the wise-azz kid in Beverly Cleary's Henry Huggins novels from my childhood.  I just remembered that!

I never liked that Lewis "Scooter" Libby.  Maybe it's because "Scooter" was the name of the wise-azz kid in Beverly Cleary's Henry Huggins novels from my childhood.  I just remembered that!



I think of the Muppets when I hear the name "Scooter".  :D





Cat

I think of the Muppets when I hear the name "Scooter".  :D



Laverene & Shirley.... "Scooter pies"

it's fun to watch the administration back down on his criteria on this one.  At first it was "If anyone in this administration was involved in it , they would no longer be in this administration."  now they say there has to be a conviction, not just involvement.  Way to backpeddle.