Karl Rove Betrayed CIA Agent's Cover - Anyone Surprised?
POSTED BY: Knibblet
UPDATED: Thursday, July 18, 2024 00:11
VIEWED: 14216
PAGE 1 of 2
Karl Rove - the human equivalent of a seeping sack of infected pus - gets pissed that a US Ambassador follows his concience and declares that the rush to war in Iraq is NOT justified.
To shut up the person who won't polish his jackboots and step along with El Presidente, Rove betrays the man's wife's identity as a CIA agent.
Treason isn't a pretty word. Treason isn't hyperbole when you're talking about a rat bastard betraying the identity of Valerie Plame and endangering the lives of the agents associated with and the work being done by her.
I'm sure no one is surprised as this is exactly the sort of thing good ole pusbag Karl has done throughout his career; however, does anyone really think that Dubya is going to do anything about it?
Nah ... it's not like El Presidente hasn't known it was his badly disciplined guard hound all along. If he didn't, it's just another example of his pickled brain not seeing something under his nose.
I know there are going to be a ton of responses about how I'm bitter that the democrats lost the election ... yadda yadda yadda ...
Make your little posts, but demand that Dubya does what he swore to do. Demand that Karl Rove be fired.
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Right on, Knibblet!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's hardly anything solid yet. With anyone else, yeah, he'd be in jail by now. But this is "Turd Blossom" himself. I'll be surprised if he even gets a slap on the wrist.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rove may not have been the only one involved. There's always Eliot Abrams and Dick Cheney to consider.
The rightwing spin is that Karl Rove thought that Plame was "just" a secretary. The right is in such a tizzy, they can't even keep their stories straight, forgetting that they also accused Plame of authorizing a trip to Niger for her husband. All I can say is- DANG, those CIA "secretaries" sure have a lot of pull!
Bush said that he would "fire" anyone who leaked her name. FIRE??? Plame's expertise was in WMD and a whole cover operation was blown. She was so deep she had no official cover, which means if she were caught the CIA would disavow any knowledge of her. I heard, and am trying to run down the source, that her "outing" caused at least one CIA officer to be killed. You don't "fire" someone for that. If they are extremely lucky, they should rot in jail for a lifetime.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Puuuuuuuuuhhhhleeeease LOL.
She was a desk Jockey who went to all the big politicos parties and was a Democratic campaign contributor, not to mention a calling her an undercover "agent" (I use the term loosely) when she was FAR from under cover is a joke. It was WELL known that she worked in the CIA.
Not to defend Mini-Cheney, but comeon now..LOL. Old Rovester didn't break any laws. This is a bandwagon mentality at it's worst. This is like calling for Clinton to be impeached cause he said he didn't have sex with an intern. WHO GIVES A FLYING CRAP?
I say Let's go after Cheney and friends about the lack of accountability on Iraq. Let's go after them about the lies surrounding the whole "Yellowcake" debaucle. Let's go after all the Washington shitheels who take money from lobbyists. Thats way more important then some rich bitch who's sugah daddy got into a tussel with Bush Jr. because he too was called out on his word "manipulation".
In my opinion they are all scumbags. Every last one of em.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, this wouldn't be the first time that an undercover officer had posed as a "desk jockey" who flits around internationally with no apparent impact.
Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame
Novak's initial column identified Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He has since stated that he believed Plame was merely an analyst at the CIA, not a covert operative—the difference being that analysts are not undercover, so identifying them is not a crime. Critics contend that after decades as a Washington reporter Novak was well aware of the difference and would be unlikely to make such a mistake. Novak has also claimed that Plame's CIA employment was an open secret in Washington, indicating that effective "affirmative measures" to conceal her relationship to the CIA were not being taken. Several ex-CIA operatives who knew Plame have disputed this and indicated that she was at one time a NOC (nonofficial cover) covert operative.
Besides, it doesn't have to be an "either/or" proposition. I can get worked up over all kinds of issues!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You know, this wouldn't be the first time that an undercover officer had posed as a "desk jockey" who flits around internationally with no apparent impact.Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame
Novak's initial column identified Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He has since stated that he believed Plame was merely an analyst at the CIA, not a covert operative—the difference being that analysts are not undercover, so identifying them is not a crime. Critics contend that after decades as a Washington reporter Novak was well aware of the difference and would be unlikely to make such a mistake. Novak has also claimed that Plame's CIA employment was an open secret in Washington, indicating that effective "affirmative measures" to conceal her relationship to the CIA were not being taken. Several ex-CIA operatives who knew Plame have disputed this and indicated that she was at one time a NOC (nonofficial cover) covert operative.
Besides, it doesn't have to be an "either/or" proposition. I can get worked up over all kinds of issues!
I don't buy it. It seems just a little toooooo "Bourne Identity" like for me.
I like Wiki, particularly since they seem to be drifting away from being totally biased and more fact oriented. Which is something I find important these days. However, I read this as well from the same link, which leads me to believe that this is a mole hill being called a mountain.
Quote:
In his October 1, 2003 article "The CIA Leak" Novak states this explanation for the two "senior administration officials" and the "CIA official" referenced in his June 14 article:
"During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.
At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission."
As for the getting worked up about other issues..
can I hear am "AMEN!!" LOL
My problem with this is that everytime we seem close to getting to the real thrust of something, this kind of crap jumps up and leads us away from finding any truth. I'd still like to know how this administration keeps getting let off the hook in regards to accountability on ANYTHING!!! LOL.
My head hurts now...tooo much... thinking..
PS.. (Off the topic a little teensie weensie bit) I spent a weekend in Woodstock this last weekend. What a crazy cool town LOL. There are some things hippies do right. Living and enjoying life is one of them LOL. I've begun to really enjoy my weekend ventures looking for some serenity. Though I'm not ready to throw on some Birkenstocks just yet lol
There was an interesting political conversation I walked into regarding the G8 Summit. It was another shining example of how easily we are swayed from real issues like Africa to whether or not a Politicos wife's career was slowed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Karl Rove - the human equivalent of a seeping sack of infected pus - gets pissed that a US Ambassador follows his concience and declares that the rush to war in Iraq is NOT justified.
To shut up the person who won't polish his jackboots and step along with El Presidente, Rove betrays the man's wife's identity as a CIA agent.
Treason isn't a pretty word. Treason isn't hyperbole when you're talking about a rat bastard betraying the identity of Valerie Plame and endangering the lives of the agents associated with and the work being done by her.
I'm sure no one is surprised as this is exactly the sort of thing good ole pusbag Karl has done throughout his career; however, does anyone really think that Dubya is going to do anything about it?
Nah ... it's not like El Presidente hasn't known it was his badly disciplined guard hound all along. If he didn't, it's just another example of his pickled brain not seeing something under his nose.
I know there are going to be a ton of responses about how I'm bitter that the democrats lost the election ... yadda yadda yadda ...
Make your little posts, but demand that Dubya does what he swore to do. Demand that Karl Rove be fired.
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/
Only that isn't what happened.
Treason? Please. No CIA agent's 'identity' was betrayed. Not by Rove, at least. She was working a desk job and not on any protection list by the CIA. It's funny to see the Left get all worked up over imaginary non issues.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fine, let's be calm then.
Dubya said he'd fire anyone on his staff that leaked classified information. Even if Karl Rove were so incredibly stupid that he didn't realize the information was classifed, he still did it and ignorance isn't an excuse.
Just like all of Dubya's bullshit stories, he'll never fire Rove or anyone else in his administration who dropped the ball, ignored the truth, manipulated intelligence, outright lied or leaked classifed information.
Hell ... I guess if he did clean house, he'd have to scrub the toilets out himself.
By the way, I'm still wondering why those Bush twins - who seem to be healthy young Americans - aren't carrying an M16 in Iraq. After all, Bush is happy enough to send everyone else's kids off to die.
Yes, despite my desire to be calm, I read more death notices from Iraq.
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:For crying out loud.
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Dubya said he'd fire anyone on his staff that leaked classified information. Even if Karl Rove were so incredibly stupid that he didn't realize the information was classifed, he still did it and ignorance isn't an excuse.
Just like all of Dubya's bullshit stories, he'll never fire Rove or anyone else in his administration who dropped the ball, ignored the truth, manipulated intelligence, outright lied or leaked classifed information.
Hell ... I guess if he did clean house, he'd have to scrub the toilets out himself.
Why should he fire Rove? How do you know he “did it?” Rove hasn’t been convicted of any crime, and I’ve not seen any hard evidence of anything, just the keyed up accusations of Liberals and other anti-Rovites. Just because you don’t agree with the guy doesn’t mean we should fire him at the first sign of the appearance of impropriety. If he is convicted of knowingly leaking the name of an agent I’ll call for his imprisonment, but until there is a guilty verdict from a trial or at least hard evidence, there is hardly any reason to go off the deep end.
If the government fired everyone who leaked classified information, we wouldn’t have a Congress.
Quote:He’s not sending anyone who didn’t sign up to go. We have an all volunteer military. If the Bush twins want to try their hand at recruitment and possibly go to Iraq, that is their prerogative.
Originally posted by Knibblet:
By the way, I'm still wondering why those Bush twins - who seem to be healthy young Americans - aren't carrying an M16 in Iraq. After all, Bush is happy enough to send everyone else's kids off to die.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Where oh where was your concern for due process when it came to Ward Churchill?
Why should he fire Rove? How do you know he “did it?” Rove hasn’t been convicted of any crime, and I’ve not seen any hard evidence of anything, just the keyed up accusations of Liberals and other anti-Rovites. Just because you don’t agree with the guy doesn’t mean we should fire him at the first sign of the appearance of impropriety.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My lack of concern for due process in Churchill’s case is a figment of your imagination. Anyone who bothers to read my posts in that topic will see quite clearly that I never called for Churchill’s dismissal.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
He’s not sending anyone who didn’t sign up to go. We have an all volunteer military. If the Bush twins want to try their hand at recruitment and possibly go to Iraq, that is their prerogative.
Excellent observation.
I saw Ferenheit 911 the other day, and found this to be the most ludicrous (sp?) argument used by the filmmaker.
He asserted that if members of congress supported the war, then they should 'send' their children to fight in Iraq.
I myself was unaware that anybody was 'sent' to Iraq. The filmmaker was making an inflammatory suggestion that was not supported by logic.
The filmmaker further said that only one member of congress had an enlisted child in the military.
I have wondered what he meant. Does only one member of congress have a child in the military, or does only one member of congress have a non-officer child in the military?
Because I think signing on as an officer counts as being in the military, too. Plus it's the smart thing to do if you can qualify for it.
Anyhow, the logic hole of 'sending' people into the military is obvious. If any adult wants to join the military, they can. (Assuming they are physically fit for it.)
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Anyhow, the logic hole of 'sending' people into the military is obvious. If any adult wants to join the military, they can. (Assuming they are physically fit for it.)
True enough, but I think the point was not that random people are pulled off the streets and sent. That's the real tragedy of it. These are truly people who love their country, who've volunteered to protect it. To send them on unnecessary adventures would be an abuse of trust. If a war is the grave necessity our leaders say, then they out to be willing to put their own flesh and blood on the line, alongside the sons and daughters of the nations taxpayers.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
About his being fired, you said YOU would not do it but it would be OK for other people to. Here are the other things you said, a lone voice crying for impartial evaluation and due process:
Quote:
FINN MAC CUMHAL
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 20:42
I totally believe they could have hired this guy based purely on his supposed Native American background. Considering the idiotic things this clown has said, I find it hard to believe that he could have made it through the system without considerable hand waiving. Higher education in this country is pretty damn Left-wing, but I can’t believe it’s this stupid.
Although I could be wrong, but if this clown is a fair representation of American Academia, we just need to shut down the colleges and start over from scratch, because there’s no fixing something that broke.
FINN MAC CUMHAL
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 22:12
bologna
He's a fruitcake.
FINN MAC CUMHAL
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 22:38
I guess that depends on what you mean by quality research. My intern does quality research, but that doesn’t mean she can do the kind of work that the modelers do. If she could, she wouldn’t be an intern; we'd hire her on full time as an engineer or scientist. It doesn’t make any difference how many papers you cite, or write or how many hours you spend in the library, if at the end of the day you draw completely fallacious conclusions.
I’m sure Mr. Churchill would make a good intern.
FINN MAC CUMHAL
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 23:02
Any idiot can publish a book. That's more dependent on public interest then on the advancement of knowledge.
As far as advancing the level of understanding within a particular field, I have yet to see anything from Chruchill that would convince me he has made any such significant advances. Your assumption that the quality of his research necessarily means his conclusion advance anything is precarious at best. I would argue that making the breakthrough discovery that innocent victims of a terrorist attack are equivalent to Nazi executioner of Jews is probably not as great a leap forward as one might think.
FINN MAC CUMHAL
... I don’t need to be intimately familiar with this man’s work in order to draw the conclusion that he is a fruitcake. I only need to be familiar enough, which I am.
FINN MAC CUMHAL
The “phenomenon of Nazi Germany” was that people like Churchill were in power. People who believed that targeting and murdering innocent people to achieve a political goal was completely justifiable. Fortunately, no one like Churchill is in power in the US today. But considering how people dismiss and justify fruitcakey comments, and how willing we seem to be to put a person like Churchill in a position where he can implant fruitcakey ideas in impressionable minds, maybe someday you’ll get your analogy.
Hitler was just a fruitcake who happened to be in power.
FINN MAC CUMHAL
Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 05:06
Never mind the 9/11 essay or the dubious ancestry, this turd is disgrace to his supposed profession.
It really puts things into perspective to see where some people’s priorities lie. Here we have the pedantic ramblings of a man who condones the intentional murder of thousands of innocent civilians based on some misguided fantasy of nationalistic pride. The psychosis of Hitler almost to the letter and some people can’t bring themselves to denounce this guy, apparently because he’s a fellow Left-winger. Instead they try to deflect the issue to the Right. The latest story is to try to bring up some journalist who snuck into the Whitehouse. During a discussion about the ‘befittingness’ of mass murder we are supposed to be outraged over some weirdo web blogger as if there is any equivalency at all. It's telling. It's very telling.
I just thought I'd inclue this little gem also from the thread:
Quote:
FINN MAC CUMHAL
Monday, April 04, 2005 - 05:24
Interesting. I initially supported Clinton in the impeachment scandal. Not that I necessarily supported him ideologically, but that was kind of during my transitional phase when I was mNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All excellent quotes. I didn’t realize I was such a poet. I stand by all of it too. And like I said, anyone who bothers to read my comments in that thread will see quite clearly that I never called for his dismissal. Interestingly enough, just like the last time you tried to pretend I supported Churchill’s dismissal, you left out this quote:
“I don’t know who all is calling for his dismissal. I think that if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately. Other then that, I’m not going to call for his dismissal based on the kinds of comments he’s made. Although, given the lunacy of some of his statements I can certainly understand if the tax payers of Colorado don’t want to pay this guy to teach their children. [emphasis mine]”
- Me. Wednesday, February 23, 2005
You made sure to get all those posts where I clearly displayed my disapproval with Churchill’s support for mass murder even though my disapproval of Churchill has little to do with whether or not I support his dismissal, but you left out the one quote that is explicitly pertinent to this discussion. The one quote where I actually pointed out exactly what I think concerning Churchill’s dismissal, you ignored. Twice. Why do you suppose that is?
If I remember the last time you started this little charade, you’ll start parsing through my words now, searching for a way to take individual words out of context or presume that I must have meant something different by a particular word then is obvious from the context in order to mold what I actually said to suit some imaginative meaning.
Oh, and while we are quoting stuff, I thought I would through this one out, since its related:
"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."
- Ward Churchill, concerning the befittingness of a terrorist attack that purposefully targeted and killed almost 3000 civilians.
Unlike Rove, the evidence against Churchill is carved in the ink of his own writing.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Nah ... it's not like El Presidente hasn't known it was his badly disciplined guard hound all along. If he didn't, it's just another example of his pickled brain not seeing something under his nose.
Are you crazy?!?! Of course Mr. Bush can see what's under his nose. Otherwise, how could so much have gone up it?
Back on topic. Mr. Rove should be suspended until his specific role has been determined. At that point he should either be fired and go to jail for a loooooong time, be forced into "retirement" as the political fallout would be to great, or continue his duties.
That's my CAD 2 cents anyway.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Don't know how I erased that one. I specifically referred to it.
“I don’t know who all is calling for his dismissal. I think that if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately. Other then that, I’m not going to call for his dismissal based on the kinds of comments he’s made. Although, given the lunacy of some of his statements I can certainly understand if the tax payers of Colorado don’t want to pay this guy to teach their children. ”
Quote:But you certainly have a record of deciding he was a fraud, incompetent, a Nazi clone, fire-able (though not by you of course, you're far too interested in due process), a fruitcake etc etc etc. Yep. You're a fair minded guy just looking for due process in the interests of justice.
About his being fired, you said YOU would not do it but it would be OK for other people to.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'd think that'd be at least the minimum policy. Any bets as to whether even that happens?
Back on topic. Mr. Rove should be suspended until his specific role has been determined.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If a war is the grave necessity our leaders say, then they out to be willing to put their own flesh and blood on the line, alongside the sons and daughters of the nations taxpayers.
Sarge, they can't put their own flesh and blood on the line, to fight alongside the sons and daughters of the nations taxpayers. That's the absurdity of it.
It was a stunt. And it does not even pass momentary muster. It's one of those fellacious arguments put forth that touches the heart but not the mind.
If Michael Moore had asked our nation's representatives, "Why don't you force your adult children to join the military against their will," it would have sounded properly absurd, and been the exact same message.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:Quote:I'd think that'd be at least the minimum policy. Any bets as to whether even that happens?
Back on topic. Mr. Rove should be suspended until his specific role has been determined.
Rove's got cards he ain't played yet. The mysterious 'other' source will materialize and take one for the team. That's my guess.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't respond to your posting way up near the top, but I did agree with it. And I agree with this posting too, though I hope - really, really hope - you (and I) are wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bingo!
Thank you kindly for saying what I REALLY meant to say. I'm an upper-middle-class-white-chick. I spent 10 years in the Air Force. Of my brothers and sisters (5 of us total) we spent 35 years in service. I have always advocated the military as a way of life for the young people I know who could both take it and thrive in it.
Now? I couldn't tell a kid the join the military. I'm seeing misadventure everywhere. Bush & Co are using our forces as a way of expanding the financial empires of their rich cronies.
Iraq had no WMD. Iraq didn't have the strength to cause its neighbors alarm. Iraq had NO connections to 9/11 or Al Quaida.
What does Iraq have? Oil.
I don't see Bush's daughters there - I do see him continuing to bang that war drum though. I don't see him or his ilk convincing their children to put themselves in harm's way.
Frak! I've hijacked my own thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
True enough, but I think the point was not that random people are pulled off the streets and sent. That's the real tragedy of it. These are truly people who love their country, who've volunteered to protect it. To send them on unnecessary adventures would be an abuse of trust. If a war is the grave necessity our leaders say, then they out to be willing to put their own flesh and blood on the line, alongside the sons and daughters of the nations taxpayers.
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Anyhow, the logic hole of 'sending' people into the military is obvious. If any adult wants to join the military, they can.
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Bingo!
Thank you kindly for saying what I REALLY meant to say. I'm an upper-middle-class-white-chick. I spent 10 years in the Air Force. Of my brothers and sisters (5 of us total) we spent 35 years in service. I have always advocated the military as a way of life for the young people I know who could both take it and thrive in it.
Now? I couldn't tell a kid the join the military. I'm seeing misadventure everywhere. Bush & Co are using our forces as a way of expanding the financial empires of their rich cronies.
Iraq had no WMD. Iraq didn't have the strength to cause its neighbors alarm. Iraq had NO connections to 9/11 or Al Quaida.
What does Iraq have? Oil.
I don't see Bush's daughters there - I do see him continuing to bang that war drum though. I don't see him or his ilk convincing their children to put themselves in harm's way.
Frak! I've hijacked my own thread.Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
True enough, but I think the point was not that random people are pulled off the streets and sent. That's the real tragedy of it. These are truly people who love their country, who've volunteered to protect it. To send them on unnecessary adventures would be an abuse of trust. If a war is the grave necessity our leaders say, then they out to be willing to put their own flesh and blood on the line, alongside the sons and daughters of the nations taxpayers.Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Anyhow, the logic hole of 'sending' people into the military is obvious. If any adult wants to join the military, they can.
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/
It was never about the oil. It was about the strategic military location of Iraq. We won't see peace for another 50 years in my opinion.
As for politicians forcing THEIR kids into joining the military, that's absurd... when the draft occurs, and it will (we can't fight on so many fronts without it), if their kids aren't included in the mix then we will have something to bitch about. Until the draft occurs, everyone in the military, like it or not, is still volunteer and knew the potential was there to be called up to fight.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Except the reservists whose expectation was that they would protect the home sod while the real troops were fighting on foreign soil.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Where oh where was your concern for due process when it came to Ward Churchill?
Where, oh, where is your concern for due process?
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The part Rove seems to have done. Is confirm that Plame was CIA and did this AFTER the story came out. That is what was said but if we are going to have a conspiracy make sure to have the real story here be about the Space Aliens using their orbital mind control ray ..... Oh wait what mind control ray.... Nothing to see here.
TANSTAAFL
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The concept of 'Total Force' was designed in part to ensure that reservists and guard would be called up. The idea was to make everyone's neighbors vulnerable and effect everyone's lives.
One of the reasons wars drag on so long is that 'regular' people don't have military experience and don't know anyone in uniform. Ergo, they don't really notice when bodies and lives are getting blown to bits.
Even with total force, people are able to turn a blind eye to the horror. They justify or ignore the carnage. "They volunteered what did they expect" is one disgusting refrain from the masses.
People being able to NOT be involved and ignore what is going on is reprehensible and is one of the reasons I've always supported a draft and national service with NO college exemption.
Here's my perfect world of universal service and or draft: Everyone -- male or female, rich or poor -- if you are of sound mind and body, you serve.
No college exemptions. You will serve before you go off to school or you will serve after graduation. No weasles getting out of it.
If you are a conciencious objector you get to spend four years picking up trash along our nation's rivers or serving in some other way that doesn't involve carrying a gun.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Except the reservists whose expectation was that they would protect the home sod while the real troops were fighting on foreign soil.
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
The concept of 'Total Force' was designed in part to ensure that reservists and guard would be called up. The idea was to make everyone's neighbors vulnerable and effect everyone's lives.
One of the reasons wars drag on so long is that 'regular' people don't have military experience and don't know anyone in uniform. Ergo, they don't really notice when bodies and lives are getting blown to bits.
Even with total force, people are able to turn a blind eye to the horror. They justify or ignore the carnage. "They volunteered what did they expect" is one disgusting refrain from the masses.
Being able to NOT be involved is one of the reasons I've always supported a draft and national service with NO college exemption.
Here's my perfect world of universal service and or draft: Everyone -- male or female, rich or poor -- if you are of sound mind and body, you serve.
No college exemptions. You will serve before you go off to school or you will serve after graduation. No weasles getting out of it.
If you are a conciencious objector you get to spend four years picking up trash along our nation's rivers or serving in some other way that doesn't involve carrying a gun.Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Except the reservists whose expectation was that they would protect the home sod while the real troops were fighting on foreign soil.
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/
Great post Knibblet. It might force us to be a little less free with the Globalization agenda. Then again..who knows. Our government would probably create a loophole to prevent THEIR kids from ever seeing active combat.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
It might force us to be a little less free with the Globalization agenda. Then again..who knows. Our government would probably create a loophole to prevent THEIR kids from ever seeing active combat.
I can only assume you're referring to the current batch of powerful men whose family connections got them a "get out of vietnam free card" and into reserve units?
No exemptions. No college exemptions. No 'wife and kids' exemptions. No 'other priorities' exemptions. No weasling your kids into the guard or reserves (which with Total Force aren't 'safe' anymore anyway) by bypassing hundreds of people on waiting lists.
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, let's see. Private and public management always reserve for themselves the right to immediately dismiss employees for serious infractions. This is completely outside of law enforcement jurisdiction. A person has NO constitutional protection from private entities and only limited protection from public ones acting as employers. But there is some managerial precedent for providing for basic fairness while at the same time dealing with serious allegations. Suspension (paid or unpaid) is the option of choice here.
Where, oh, where is your concern for due process?
So, find me a quote where I say Rove should be instantly fired.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I never said it was okay for anyone to do it. That’s your imagination. Without a doubt I don’t care much for the guy, and I certainly sympathize with the families who don’t want their children being taught by an instructor that openly condones mass murder. I’m not going to apologize for that. I don’t care much for a lot people who condone mass murder. None of that has anything to do with whether I called for his dismissal which I clearly did not. And for you to use it that way, especially after I’ve explicitly stated the contrary, is silly. It would be comedic, if you weren’t actually trying to be serious.
Originally posted by rue:
About his being fired, you said YOU would not do it but it would be OK for other people to. . . . But you certainly have a record of deciding he was a fraud, incompetent, a Nazi clone, fire-able (though not by you of course, you're far too interested in due process), a fruitcake etc etc etc. Yep. You're a fair minded guy just looking for due process in the interests of justice.
Quote:Why? You’ve already set the bar on this much lower. All we have to do is show that you don’t agree with him, and according to you, that’s evidence of wanting him dismissed. Or are you a hypocrite?
Originally posted by rue:
So, find me a quote where I say Rove should be instantly fired.
Quote:His ilk? Most of the military are Bush supporters? Most of the military in Iraq voted for Bush, twice. And none of them were coerced into the military, not by Bush. They support Bush and joined the military totally on their own.
Originally posted by Knibblet:
I don't see Bush's daughters there - I do see him continuing to bang that war drum though. I don't see him or his ilk convincing their children to put themselves in harm's way.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
His ilk? Most of the military are Bush supporters? Most of the military in Iraq voted for Bush, twice. And none of them were coerced into the military, not by Bush. They support Bush and joined the military totally on their own.
I never said the military was Bush's ilk. Never. Never. Never.
The military didn't want the war in Iraq and its leaders tried to warn the White House that we didn't have the people or resources for this adventure when we had real threats elsewhere (nuclear Korea for one). They were told to shut up and salute.
You'll never find anyone as anti-war and realistic about the costs of war as a military person.
His 'ilk' are politicians and other purveyors of sleaze who see war as a glorious adventure until it affects their personal asses getting shot off.
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*sigh* No-one liked my joke.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Back on topic. Mr. Rove should be suspended until his specific role has been determined.
I'd think that'd be at least the minimum policy. Any bets as to whether even that happens?
Well, if we look at the history of rewarding behaviour like this by the GW admin., then I'm going to have to side with Jon Stewart. With something like this, his "punishment" will be a promotion to cheif justice on the supreme court.
Just a general comment though. Watching the news about what is happening politically in the US (mainly) is kinda like watching political satire. I'd laugh at the absurdity if I wasn't aware it was real. Right now it's just scary sad.
Anyone else feel this way?
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You mean- this one???
*sigh* No-one liked my joke.
Quote:OF COURSE I liked your joke! It caught me in the middle of drinking my ayem coffee, which I promptly snorted out my, er, nose!
Are you crazy?!?! Of course Mr. Bush can see what's under his nose. Otherwise, how could so much have gone up it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
*sigh* No-one liked my joke.
Quote:
You mean- this one???Are you crazy?!?! Of course Mr. Bush can see what's under his nose. Otherwise, how could so much have gone up it? OF COURSE I liked your joke! It caught me in the middle of drinking my ayem coffee, which I promptly snorted out my, er, nose!
Ditto! Diet Pepsi burns like a mo-fo
I was working on forgetting it so as to heal and move on in life.
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Just a general comment though. Watching the news about what is happening politically in the US (mainly) is kinda like watching political satire. I'd laugh at the absurdity if I wasn't aware it was real. Right now it's just scary sad.
Anyone else feel this way?
Yes. Yes. This is a very scary sad moment for us humans. We're gonna have to do some growing up very fast, if a whole crowd of disasters are to be avoided. People in this country are so frightened still, and angry. I thought that would have subsided by now. I thought the war would be far more unpopular by now than it is. I thought something would have tarnished Bush's lustre by now. Even militarily, we have seen failure after failure, but Bush has yet to admit to even the smallest mistake. I'm shocked that Americans are comforted by this b.s.
We need someone with a different vision of the future than the forever war. We need somebody to tell the American people to calm the hell down. If this is Viet Nam all over again, where the heck is the new Martin Luther King?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SigmaNunki
I LOVED your joke ! I just didn't want to seem like I was trying to turn the thread into a love-fest. I'd hate for you to be lumped in with me. You'd take a lot of abuse.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, Finn, Finn ...
I am familiar enough with dodge phrases - it seems, it appears, I think ...
And with how you routinely malign people through implication.
So here it is, in a nutshell:
You said if he got his job through fraud he should be fired, and that he was not up to academic muster, and that his phony Indian 'status' got him the job. The only thing you left out was "therefore".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:[off topic] Many Americans are living a deep contradiction. On the one hand, they feel morally and militarily superior. On the other hand, they fear. But they have yet to experience that cold, still moment when survival calculations take place. When they are shocked into THINKING. Because they haven't truly taken the measure of their opponent, they are likely to act in dangerous ways.In the thread on Americans gunning down farmers, I posted a portion of an LA Times editorial that speculates rather specifically on the chances and outcome of an "Islamic" nuclear bomb. It seems unthinkable, but so was 9-11. I believe the invasion of Iraq will have powerfully dangerous consequences for us. I suspect this will be far worse than Vietnam ever was because potential oil resources and population size can combine to create a much stronger enemy. I hope I'm wrong. [/off topic]
Yes. Yes. This is a very scary sad moment for us humans. We're gonna have to do some growing up very fast, if a whole crowd of disasters are to be avoided. People in this country are so frightened still, and angry.
Back to our regularly scheduled programming...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In other words, I never called for his dismissal, did I?
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, Finn, Finn ...
I am familiar enough with dodge phrases - it seems, it appears, I think ...
And with how you routinely malign people through implication.
So here it is, in a nutshell:
You said if he got his job through fraud he should be fired, and that he was not up to academic muster, and that his phony Indian 'status' got him the job. The only thing you left out was "therefore".
I’ll simply respond with your own words:
“So, find me a quote where I say [ Churchill ] should be instantly fired.”
Or does this only apply to you? The rest of the world is subject to whatever strawman you decide you want to use to manipulate people’s comments to suit what you want to be true?
Evidently, you think the "minimum policy" should be that Rove should be suspended, so you are calling Rove’s dismissal without due process. Is there some reason why Rove shouldn’t be granted the same benefit of the doubt as an instructor who condones the mass murder of Americans? You've decided that due process was so important in Churchill's case, but not Rove's?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, Finn, Finn ...
I am familiar enough with dodge phrases - it seems, it appears, I think ...
And with how you routinely malign people through implication.
But, alas. This is the republican way. I think they send them to a school or something to perfect the technique. Wonder if they have a class on avoiding federal grand jury indictments?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ummm... a point here? Maybe it's because Karl apparently doesn't know how to handle classified information? That he could have inflicted real harm to our security (and according to some CIA ppl he did)? Or possibly that he appears to have broken a law? Suspension is not firing, you know. It merely means that a person is temporarily removed from their duties (often WITH pay) while the facts are sorted out. So far, according to both Karl's lawyer and Matt Cooper, the facts would justify suspension.
Is there some reason why Rove shouldn’t be granted the same benefit of the doubt as an instructor who condones the mass murder of Americans?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First of all, suspension (with or without pay) is not dismissal. Basic fact you can't seem to wrap your mind around. Second, Churchill's statements fall under first ammendment constitutional protections. Rove's - not so much. Last, you yourself made the link between Churchill's statement's and firing by direct contrast - I would not, but they ....
Evidently, you think the "minimum policy" should be that Rove should be suspended, so you are calling Rove’s dismissal without due process. Is there some reason why Rove shouldn’t be granted the same benefit of the doubt as an instructor who condones the mass murder of Americans? You've decided that due process was so important in Churchill's case, but not Rove's?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, Finn, Finn ...
I am familiar enough with dodge phrases - it seems, it appears, I think ...
And with how you routinely malign people through implication.
But, alas. This is the republican way. I think they send them to a school or something to perfect the technique. Wonder if they have a class on avoiding federal grand jury indictments?
Are these guys EVER going to be held to account for their vapid denials and constantly shifting realities? Karl Rove says he didn't even know Wilson's wife's name and then is shown to have named her in an email. McClellen says the accusation is "ridiculous" and then is proven wrong. Cheney says the insurgency is in it's last throes and then gives us double talk dictionary definitions of "throes." Rummy says these "last throes" could take "2, 5 or 12 years." Bush says that Bin Laden doesn't concern him anymore and less than a month (I think it was just a few weeks) later denies it, saying, "I don't recall ever saying that." And on and on and on and on and on and on. They wanted to impeach Clinton for lying about who he had sex with, but the constant lies and obfuscations about matters of actual national importance...nothing.
"This has all been covered before."
"It's old news."
"lefties whining about non-issues."
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here are a few more: The Bush administration resisted the formation of the 9-11 Commission, and has STILL refused to allow access to key witnesses, then paints themselves as "anti-terrorists". Gonzales splits hairs about the meaning of torture to justify... torture. There is no such thing as global warming... well, maybe there is. The true (actuarial) cost of drug coverage in Medicare was suppressed. The TAX CUTS benefitted everyone. Bush is a compassionate conservative. Social Security is in crisis, but the Federal budget... not so much.
Some Americans can swallow ENDLESS filth. As long as they keep swallowing, the Administration will keep pooping it out. And those same Americans can live with fundamental chasms in their brains, without ever a spark of thought crossing the divide between one basic thought (I am superior) and an opposing one (I am afraid). I think it has to to with America being the most religious developed nation in the world. If you grow up believing in the universal invisible friend, you're primed to accept statements that contradict your own senses. And that makes you vulnerable to televangelists, politicians and hucksters of any sort, as long as they speak a familiar lingo.
BTW, there is a big untold story here. There were TWO Administration sources to the Plame story. Rove was one and my bet is that Cheney was the other. The two halves of Bush's brain. Gosh, if he had to fire them both, he wouldn't know what to think!
I have NO respect for people who have NO respect for what they put in their brains.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How do you know any of this is true? That is what due process was to determine. Are you magic? Evidently, you’ve already convicted him, right?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ummm... a point here? Maybe it's because Karl apparently doesn't know how to handle classified information? That he could have inflicted real harm to our security (and according to some CIA ppl he did)? Or possibly that he appears to have broken a law?
Quote:I don’t remember you calling for Churchill’s “suspension.” All I remember you complaining about Churchill was “due process,” and how important it was before anyone jumped to conclusions, or suggested that he maybe shouldn't have condoned mass murder. Evidently, if you’re Karl Rove it’s less important.
Originally posted by rue:
First of all, suspension (with or without pay) is not dismissal. Basic fact you can't seem to wrap your mind around.
Quote:“So, find me a quote where I say [ Churchill ] should be instantly fired.”
Originally posted by rue:
Last, you yourself made the link between Churchill's statement's and firing by direct contrast - I would not, but they ....
Quote:Did all of you attend that class?
Originally posted by SergeantX:Quote:But, alas. This is the republican way. I think they send them to a school or something to perfect the technique. Wonder if they have a class on avoiding federal grand jury indictments?
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, Finn, Finn ...
I am familiar enough with dodge phrases - it seems, it appears, I think ...
And with how you routinely malign people through implication.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
. . . Bush says that Bin Laden doesn't concern him anymore and less than a month (I think it was just a few weeks) later denies it, saying, . . .
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think it has to to with America being . . .
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn- Look, I know you're on the defensive here, but at this point you're in blatant denial of reality. It has already been verified that Plame's indentity was classified. It has already been verified that Rove was ONE OF the sources. Ipso facto, Rove mishandled classified information. Whether he did this maliciously or stupidly, whether he placed CIA officers in jeopardy or broke a law has yet to be determined, which is why I said it APPEARS that he has broken a law. You don't wait until AFTER the investigation is concluded to suspend someone. Suspension is normal operating procedure when serious ALLEGATIONS are made against a government official or employee, and is invoked while the invetigation is taking place. Here are some examples of allegations that would probably result in suspension: sexual harassment, mishandling accounts, mishandling sensitive information, or (in the case of police officers) excessive use of force.
If it seems like I'm beating this dead horse, it is because you appear to fail to understand what suspension is and when it is used.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:How do you know any of this is true? That is what due process was to determine. Are you magic? Evidently, you’ve already convicted him, right?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ummm... a point here? Maybe it's because Karl apparently doesn't know how to handle classified information? That he could have inflicted real harm to our security (and according to some CIA ppl he did)? Or possibly that he appears to have broken a law?
Jeez'chrise, Finn, WTF? I think O.J. did it. In fact, I'm pretty darn sure he killed his wife and that other guy. Michael Jackson can't be trusted around young boys. Rodney King got the
beat out of him. There's at least one sex addict on the Supreme Court. Due process doesn't change the truth. "Due process" and "innocent before proven guilty" are matters of law. They were designed with the intent of limiting the power of the state. They do not determine reality or describe the way people actually live or think (in most cases). I'm not magic, I'm just not blind to what goes on in the world. And, get this: I might be wrong.Whatever nit-picking feud you may have going with Rue here, the rest of us still get to say what we think is obvious. None of us has the power to fire any of these folks, so we're all just mouthing off here. Do you mind?
Quote:
Did all of you attend that class?Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
. . . Bush says that Bin Laden doesn't concern him anymore and less than a month (I think it was just a few weeks) later denies it, saying, . . .
Ah, now, what are you dragging me into this nonsense for? I added the "I think" precisely because I wasn't sure of my facts and was too lazy to go look 'em up. I didn't want some jackanapes to dismiss my whole point with "it wasn't a month, it was 43 days!" Aw well, best laid plans...
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Regardless of whether he technically broke the law or not, what has most of us upset is that this was yet another one of Karl Rove's underhanded smear jobs. THAT's what offends me more than anything and, to be honest, I do want to see him get caught, at least for something. They ought to be able to prosecute him for the tremendous damage he, and his ilk, have done to the democratic process. But since that's unlikely, I'll take what we can get.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Just because certain words can be used as dodge words, doesn't mean that in every instance they are.
I think, therefore, I am.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue- Are you sure??? heh heh heh!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Perfessergee, with great trepidation (knowing that he’s going to get flamed), throws his opinion into the breech. He, using the unusual editorial 3rd person singular, expresses his incredulity (translation, he wonders what the hell some people are using for logic) as to the following:
Why on Earth has Ward Churchill’s name come into this thread at all?
Response: It’s mostly a red herring, but it is related and by no means trivial. Churchill expressed a personal political opinion. It may have been an idiotic and hateful opinion, but any rational and objective person must concede that under US political tradition there happens to exist this perhaps trivial document called the US Constitution, which claims that every person has the right to express his/her political opinion. Personally (dropping the 3rd person bit for a moment), I rather like that little document. It lets me proclaim that Churchill’s opinion is idiotic without having to worry about whether powerful individuals and political institutions might proclaim that he’s right.
Pause for thought: Have powerful individuals and political institutions ever proclaimed that despicable and idiotic ideas are “right”? Well, yes, of course, and many times over in human history, but in the US? Could such a thing be? Is it possible that there might be any examples in our own history? Oh, come on, no American could do such a thing as to express and enforce despicable and idiotic ideas, right? Right? For a silly example, would we ever incarcerate anyone, let alone our own citizens, without recourse to the courts to defend their rights? Might there be any examples? Oh surely not……….
Perfessergee hopes that the reader might spend a moment or two in contemplation. Not in chauvinistic arrogance, but in thinking about human history.
History is such an inconvenient thing when you are convinced that you’re right.
Hoping you'll actually apply your brain-pan perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmmm
Now it seems that Rove did'nt say the name, but the journalist did.
Hmmm
And also it seems the husband of said outed cia covert operative has stated on record that his wife was not a "covert operative" when her name came up. In fact she had not been an operative for at least six years before her name came out.
She's been sitting behind a desk at Langley touting her husband as the perfect guy to go on fact finding missions for the cia.
Hmmmmm, interesting.
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"But the context of the interview on the July 14 edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports demonstrates that the AP misconstrued and falsely reported Wilson's remarks. In stating that "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," Wilson was simply noting that Plame's identity was no longer secret after Novak publicly revealed it."
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Evidence indicates that Plame did in fact engage in CIA business abroad between 1998 and 2003, even if she was not stationed abroad. For example, the Post suggested on October 8, 2003, that Plame remained undercover "in recent years" as an "energy consultant," while actually serving as a weapons proliferation analyst for the CIA, and was known by friends and neighbors as someone who "traveled frequently overseas":
For the past several years, she has served as an operations officer working as a weapons proliferation analyst. She told neighbors, friends and even some of her CIA colleagues that she was an "energy consultant." She lived behind a facade even after she returned from abroad. It included a Boston front company named Brewster-Jennings & Associates, which she listed as her employer on a 1999 form in Federal Election Commission records for her $1,000 contribution to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.
Administration officials confirmed that Brewster-Jennings was a front. The disclosure of its existence, which came about because it was listed in the FEC records, magnifies the potential damage related to the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity: It may give anyone who dealt with the firm clues to her CIA work. In addition, anyone who ever had contact with the company, and any foreign person who ever met with Valerie Plame, innocently or not, might now be suspected of working with the agency.
Friends and neighbors knew Valerie Wilson as a consultant who traveled frequently overseas.
CNN national security correspondent David Ensor reported on the September 29, 2003, edition of Wolf Blitzer Reports:
ENSOR: All I can say is my sources tell me that this is a CIA operative. This is a person who did run agents. This is a person who was out there in the world collecting information.
Both the USA Today report and a separate July 14 article in The Washington Post described Toensing as a co-author of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act without revealing that she is a partisan Republican and personal friend of CNN host and columnist Robert D. Novak, who originally outed Plame in July 2003."
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way- Karl Rove is quoted as saying that Valerie Plame was "fair game". This is in the context of discrediting her husband, Joe Wilson.
Karl Rove, in the past, also bugged his own candidate's office and then claimed it was the opposition that did it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Now it seems that Rove did'nt say the name, but the journalist did.
And also it seems the husband of said outed cia covert operative has stated on record that his wife was not a "covert operative" when her name came up. In fact she had not been an operative for at least six years before her name came out.
She's been sitting behind a desk at Langley touting her husband as the perfect guy to go on fact finding missions for the cia.
So wait a minute here, I'm not quite following your argument. Are you saying that because Plame had a Langley desk job at the time that Novak outed her (let's put our feeble memories together and try to remember who, as a matter of indisputable and very public fact did reveal her name) that she wasn't actually working for the CIA and therefore couldn't really have anything like classified status? And are you also arguing that revealing her previous (or even then-current) job status could have no effect on those who had worked with or for her in what clearly appears to have been clandestine and classified service to the US government?
Well, if that were the case, then perhaps you might be able to explain why the current administration didn't just simply state that Ms. Plame wasn't a protected CIA employee, and that therefore there couldn't be any problem with mentioning her name? Wouldn't this argument quell all but the most ardent conspiracy-theory detractors? Not to mention saving a whole lot of money, and also embarrassment for people who now stand revealed as having dispensed untruths in very public fora (the White House spokesman, for example)?
I don't think I'm the only one who noticed that no such argument was put forth. Could this be that such an argument might contradict the written record (even though the record might be classified - oh, but damn, there's that classified status thing again).
Let's get serious folks. At the very least, somebody violated their security clearance in a most egregious way. As best can be told from the public record, there were 2 such persons, and they both work in or have access to the White House. Security clearances are normally only given to those who can be trusted not to violate confidentiality (and who explicitly agree to maintain confidentiality, under penalty of law). But to not violate the concept, one would have to understand what it actually means. I'm personally pretty confident that no dictionary includes "political expediency" as part of the definition of "confidentiality".
Somebody in the administration abrogated their duty in this matter. Every person who participated in that abrogation should be publicly identifed and pay the full price. Is it right that the only person paying any penalty for holding the administration to account for its conduct in this matter is a journalist (whatever you might think of her recent record) who didn't even actually publish?
Not in my 'verse. And I hope not in any 'verse where people have a sense of common decency.
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry folks, I just realized that I screwed up in the message I just posted. I said that a journalist was the only person paying a penalty in this appalling affair. I should have acknowledged that everyone who pays US taxes is also paying a penalty, and it ain't a cheap one. Personally, I can think of many, many ways I'd rather have my money spent, but then that would require that malfeasants take responsibility for their actions...........
wishing it would happen perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I couldn't agree more AJ. That's the really frustrating part about all of this. IF his latest story is the truth, why didn't we get it two years ago when it could have saved us all a lot of time and money.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe it has to do with the fact that the Justice Department (with Bush's direct political appointee as head) sat on the investigation for over a year before it was given UNDER POLITICAL PRESSURE to a Special Presecutor based outside of Washington? (Chicago) Maybe it's because Rove is so politically connected that any Bush apointee, or anyone who reports to a Bush appointee, is looking at career suicide for pursuing it?
If Karl Rove did this terrible thing why hasn't anything happened to him yet?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
...I have ask why people are pursuing this with such acrimony.
Andrew Lynch
Well, that's an easy one. Karl Rove, rightly or wrongly, has garnered quite a reputation for dirty pool. It might be fun to have a successful cheater on your side, not so much for the other guys. He's done his share of gloating and media manipulation. There's definitely some payback going on here, regardless of the facts of the case.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Special Prosecutor was waiting for the whole issue of confidential sources to be adjudicated, which it fianlly was. The source (Rove) was revealed just within the past week. It's all been in the news.
As far as the Justic Department being openly corrupt- I'm saying the entire Bush administration is corrupt, not just the upper echelons of the Justice Department. And as far as civil servants doing their job regardless of political or personal cost- look at what happens to the ones who do, starting with Joe Wilson. I could compile a whole list of dedicated civil servants who have been fired, maligned, or sidetracked for openly disagreeing with the Bush administration. Where shall I start?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fitzgerald is the Special Prosecutor who required ppl to testify before the Grand Jury. Time turned Matt Cooper's emails over to the Grand Jury which described the conversation with Rove. The critical email says, in part: "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation....it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip". Cooper also testified before the grand jury last week. I suppose that we will find out what he said later, when he writes his story for Time.
The Special Prosecutor is also looking at where the WH got the information in the first place on Plame's potential connection to Joe Wilson's trip. The State Department had a memo linking Wilson and Plame, and Colin Powell (the link between the WH and the State Department) was seen walking aorund with it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It struck me today, the odd parallels between the Karl Rove case and Michael Jackson's latest acquittal - useful ones at that.
I mean, Michael Jackson beat the rap, and for all I know he's perfectly innocent, but can't we all agree that parents would be negligent in the extreme if they sent their kid off to one of MJ's sleepovers? I'm sort of seeing the Karl Rove thing the same way. He'll probably get off, he always does, but do we really want someone like that in a position of such power and influence?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Was KR spreading slime again? Wilson's wife had nothing to do with Joe Wilson being sent to Niger. And that is old, old information (located somewhere within the Senate Report).
... KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Karl Rove has a special talent for skating away from his misdeeds, of which there are plenty. However, the person that I find leaves the fewest fingerprints is Cheney. Try researching him on the inet. His only affiliation is with Halliburton. But according to O'Neill (ex- Treasury Sc'y) Bush never made a decision without first speaking in private with Cheney. After the two of them had gone off into another room for a few minutes, Bush would then emerge and announce "his" decision.
Cheney was there to hold Bush's hand before the 9-11 Commission. According to the CIA people, Cheney and his aide Libby checked into the CIA Langley offices "multiple" times- an unheard of level of personal interest- when the WMD information was being compiled (eg cherry-picked). www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0306/05/nation-184523.htm
Rumor says that Cheney selected Rumsfeld, who then appointed Wolfowitz and Feith. Cheney also chaired the infamously secret Energy Commission. He is truly is the other half of Bush's brain.
"Never use a letter when a conversation will do, never use a conversation when a wink and a nod will do."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It is a proven fact that Rove mishandled classified information. That may not rise to the level of a crime, but look at the purpose of that action- by his own admission to malign Joe Wilson, one of the few dedicated govt employees who did exactly what you said they should do- come forward publically to tell the truth. Karl did the same thing that you accuse his detractors of- he maligned someone and made "fair game" of that person's wife, ruined her career, and potentially undercut our "war on terror" by removing/ endangering operatives and sources from our roster.
I don't think anyone should be referring to Karl Rove as someone who has committed a criminal act because he is innocent until proven guilty. Calling Karl Rove nasty names based on unproven beliefs is an unjustified smear. I haven't seen any facts indicating his guilt but a lot of unfounded assertions
And you think we should wait until he's been proven to have committed a crime before we call him "nasty names"? I guess what you're saying is... you approve of such actions, even if they don't meet the "criminality" threshold?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AJ- I don't assume guilt. But I recognize it when I find it. I know we've been through this discussion before, but I can list you a number of documented cases... not counting MWD... where the Bush administration lied and then beat down the civil servants who dared to tell the truth. Do you agree with that behavior?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AJ- you seem to be fundamentally confused. Mishandling classified information is not necessarily a crime. It's a proven fact that Karl mishandled classified information, and yet it's entirely possible that no charges will ever be filed if he can show that he didn't know it was classified, for example.
Do you think it's acceptable for an Administration to lie to Congress and to the American people? (This is outside of the WMD question, which I know we will never agree on.) What is your opinion? It's a simple question- "yes" or "no" will do. Thanks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
However, as it stands right now no charges are filed against Karl Rove and the grand jury has not decided to send him to trial. Unless something dramatic happens we really can only assume the same thing about Karl Rove as we can about MJ: that he is not guilty. At least that is the court's apparent position so far.
Like with MJ, I don't think anyone should be referring to Karl Rove as someone who has committed a criminal act because he is innocent until proven guilty. Calling Karl Rove nasty names based on unproven beliefs is an unjustified smear. I haven't seen any facts indicating his guilt but a lot of unfounded assertions. I think the first step the special prosecutor should do is establish IF a crime has been committed at all -- even that basic fact is less than clear at present.
So.... you would send your kids to MJ's for a sleepover?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If it can be proved that civil servants told the truth and were retaliated against then it is a violation of federal law. I assure you that we would have heard about it if that had occurred.
http://actforvictory.org/act.php/truth/articles/admitted_medicare_liar
_is_bushs_new_health_care_surrogate/
Bush lied about cost to Medicare
Quote:
...Thomas Scully was issued a $84,933 fine for illegal acts last month. “The Bush administration illegally withheld data from Congress on the cost of the new Medicare law, and as a penalty, the former head of the Medicare agency, Thomas A. Scully, should repay seven months of his salary to the government federal investigators said Tuesday… [Source: New York Times, 9/8/04]
On June 11, 2003 Chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster estimates the cost of Bush’s Medicare bill at $551 billion. [Source: New York Times, 3/18/04] Yet despite this estimate, Congress was assured that “the cost would not exceed $400 billion over 10 years, the amount proposed by President Bush” [Source: Newy York Times, 3/14/04] Defying the cost estimate [that] his chief actuary came up with, Bush Medicare chief Thomas Scully refuses to answer a Congressman’s inquiry about the cost of Bush’s Medicare bill. Scully threatens his actuary, Richard Foster, warning him not to give out the true estimate of the Medicare bill’s cost. Scully tells the inquiring Congressional staffer, “If Rick Foster gives that to you, I’ll fire him so fast his head will spin.” [Source: New York Times, 3/18/04]
“President Bush urged Congress on Thursday to quickly finish work on a Medicare prescription drug bill and said he was not deterred by concerns that the $400 billion program would add to budget deficits...” [Source: AP , 9/23/04]
January 29, 2004: Bush White House concedes that the real Medicare cost is nearly $550 billion.
EDITED TO ADD: The context of this LIE was that a critical number of Republicans had said they would not vote for the bill if the cost exceeded 400 billion.
The Bush Administration was so disturbed by Scully's underhanded and illegal actions that it offered him a place on the campaign trail.
Do you agree with such actions? Is it right or wrong for the President and his appointees to lie to Congress or the American people? Is it right or wrong for the President or his appointees to threaten civil servants not to tell the truth, or in retaliation for telling the truth?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:AJ: Let me toss another softball to you: Am I to assume that this ethical standard should apply to the Bush administration as well?
Advancing negative unfounded assertions based solely on personal beliefs is a smear.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AJ
Yowza! Are you arguing for its own sake and not really cognizant of how bent it seems?
This is a serious question. There are so many other things you accept (like WMD) without requiring this level of proof (in fact, on faith almost like a religion, without any proof at all).
Rue
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
There apparently is not enough evidence against Karl Rove to file charges or get a grand jury to indict. Therefore, there is no trial. So without a trial, Karl Rove retains the presumption of innocence.
Andrew Lynch
Well, that remains to be determined, but you're still missing my point. (Intentionally perhaps?) I'll lay it out there again, just in case I wasn't clear. When someone is repeatedly suspected of foul play, even if they're clever enough to avoid prosecution, is that really someone we want in a position of power and leadership? What does that say about the character of the Bush White House?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
General comment. You seem to believe quite emphatically there are/were massive stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. As the basis for your position you cite intellgence reports.
OTOH you say that because nothing has legally happened to Rove (caveat - yet), it means that nothing happened at all. You seem to think Rove did not talk to reporters and reveal the identity (named or not) of an agent, despite ample testimony from those who talked directly with him that yes indeedee-do, that's what he did. (That's not hearsay BTW, it's direct evidence. Hearsay would be the testimony of someone who heard of the conversation from someone involved, or even further removed. The person who was directly involved proffers direct testimony as a witness.)
If you were to bring the same 'Rove' level of disbelief to the WMD question, you'd say - well of course they were only intelligence estimates, and estimates depend on what assumptions you make, and so of course they could have been wrong.
And the other way around.
But your demands vary depending on who you cite, which leads me to think you accept whatever the administration says with a religious faith.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Bush is ... a man of his word, honest, and his administration has been free of scandal."
It boggles the mind that ANYONE today could be so totally blind and uninformed as LYNCHAJ.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
So far, I haven't seen ANY indications of foul play by Karl Rove or the President Bush administration....
riiiiight!SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Several selected points that I have not been able to address due to prior commitments.
Quote:I don’t mind at all. Furthermore, I don’t see anyone preventing you.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Whatever nit-picking feud you may have going with Rue here, the rest of us still get to say what we think is obvious. None of us has the power to fire any of these folks, so we're all just mouthing off here. Do you mind?
Quote:Perhaps you might have explained this to rue. Now, for what it’s worth, I agree with you. Phrases like “I think” are essential to intelligent debate, qualifying statements as opinion instead of asserting them as fact. This is one of the hallmarks of intelligent fair-minded discussion.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Ah, now, what are you dragging me into this nonsense for? I added the "I think" precisely because I wasn't sure of my facts and was too lazy to go look 'em up.
Quote:Actually I have yet to see any evidence that Rove did anything wrong. Maybe Rove was responsible for illegally releasing classified information about a covert government agent or maybe he was not, but you stating so, does not make it true.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- Look, I know you're on the defensive here, but at this point you're in blatant denial of reality. It has already been verified that Plame's indentity was classified. It has already been verified that Rove was ONE OF the sources. Ipso facto, Rove mishandled classified information. Whether he did this maliciously or stupidly, whether he placed CIA officers in jeopardy or broke a law has yet to be determined, which is why I said it APPEARS that he has broken a law. You don't wait until AFTER the investigation is concluded to suspend someone. Suspension is normal operating procedure when serious ALLEGATIONS are made against a government official or employee, and is invoked while the invetigation is taking place. Here are some examples of allegations that would probably result in suspension: sexual harassment, mishandling accounts, mishandling sensitive information, or (in the case of police officers) excessive use of force.
Quote:Curious. I don’t remember either you or rue calling for Churchill’s suspension.
Originally posted by SignyM:
If it seems like I'm beating this dead horse, it is because you appear to fail to understand what suspension is and when it is used.
Quote:Oh, I have no doubt. If a Liberal Democrat espouses a Postmodern Liberal opinion by qualifying said opinion with the words “I think,” undoubtedly you would find such an opinion appropriately stated. This is simply a rhetorical stunt by which you are able to insulate yourself from any opinion that you don’t happen to agree with. From your point of view, evidently, the only opinions that are honestly stated are those with which you agree. That is a degree of closed mindedness that is so well crafted that one imagines it to be basically impossible for you to learn anything that doesn’t adhere to previously conceived or accepted ideas.
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,
Just because certain words can be used as dodge words, doesn't mean that in every instance they are.
Quote:I think that what Barnstormer is arguing is that by definition within the law in question Plame was not, in fact,
Originally posted by perfessergee:
So wait a minute here, I'm not quite following your argument. Are you saying that because Plame had a Langley desk job at the time that Novak outed her (let's put our feeble memories together and try to remember who, as a matter of indisputable and very public fact did reveal her name) that she wasn't actually working for the CIA and therefore couldn't really have anything like classified status? And are you also arguing that revealing her previous (or even then-current) job status could have no effect on those who had worked with or for her in what clearly appears to have been clandestine and classified service to the US government?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Emails and direct testimony under oath don't count?
but you stating so, does not make it true.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Then I guess I'm free to "smear" away, since it's unlikely that I'll be convicted of a crime. Therefore, by your logic I will ignore your appeals for ethcial behavior, since according to you ethics don't count.
If Karl Rove committed a crime then he should be charged, indicted, tried, and severely punished if convicted of violating the terms of his security clearance. Otherwise, he is innocent.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Certainly, not your interpretation of them.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Emails and direct testimony under oath don't count?
but you stating so, does not make it true.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
.... must hold on... to sanity.. must resist. (through sheer, glassy-eyed repetition, the talking points are invading my mindspace)... help me..
Yes. I see now. Karl Rove has done nothing wrong. These aren't the droids we're looking for...
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn- perhaps you missed the quote email? At this point I'm going to end my discussion w/ AJ and Finn, for what I think are pretty obvious reasons.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t know which “quote email” you are referring to, but if it is one that contains the “proven fact” that Rove mishandled classified information as you assert, then I must have missed it.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- perhaps you missed the quote email? At this point I'm going to end my discussion w/ AJ and Finn, for what I think are pretty obvious reasons.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, AJ, you guys have really outdone yourselves on this one. And pretty much shot your wad as far as speaking with any moral integrity goes.
You've steadfastly supported the notion that as long as Karl Rove cannot be 'convicted' everything is hunky dory. Moral: "Don't get caught".
How can you be proud of supporting those kinds of ethics? Rove gets caught in yet another underhanded attempt to manipulate the media and all you can do is look for loopholes. Doesn't it bother you that Karl Rove wasn't confident enough in his administration's position to rely on honest politics to support it?
It would be soooo refreshing to hear just one Bush supporter speak up and at least say "Hey. Karl Rove is repeatedly involved in shady business. It's not the kind of thing we approve of and he needs to be put on a short leash." But we don't get that. Instead, it's just the droning litany of excuses and technicalities that make it OK to support a scumbag.
The only conviction I'm seeing here is to victory. Karl Rove wins elections and runs the media like his own personal three ring circus. You don't care what he does to achieve this, how deceptive or underhanded his smear campaigns get, as long as he wins. So much for bringing dignity back to the White House.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sarge- Let me add one more thing. If there are any reasonable conservatives (Geezer, for example) who want to know if ardent Bush supporters have even one toe dabbling in reality, just read this thread. It should answer that question.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
PS, what do you guys expect from someone from Manticore? (thanks to Chrisisall
I expect you could introduce me to Max...
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, hey, if you're as bummed about Rove as I am, why don't you sign 'em all??
www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?ItemId=19325
www.political.moveon.org/firerove/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hat tip on the post, SergeantX. And to Rue, and Signym, and Knibblet, and HKCavalier, and anyone else who I'm missing who are slogging through the latest round of Rove-redemption-rationales being pulled out.
I've been ghosting the thread and not posting up until now, but just had to drop a few pennies worth of my thoughts. It's probably the beer talking...
Am I surprised that Karl Rove would put partisan politics above national security? No. This is absolutely consistent with his actions in the past. There's a reason George HW Bush dumped him. Ask John McCain about Rove's tricks. Or the governor of Texas who was rumored to be a lesbian while Bush was running against her. Or the opponent of one of Rove's clients who was labeled as a pedophile right before the election. Katherine Harris found out what happens when you cross Rove. He's the iron fist beneath a not-so-velvet glove. Not surprising that he doesn't run for public office. The last thing he wants is to be in a position where he's held accountable.
Rove's defenders have invested way more thought and effort into rationalizing his actions than he did before he leaked Plame's status to multiple reporters. I honestly don't think he gave it much thought. Wilson needed to be attacked and he had the ammunition. The fact that the ammunition was classified probably didn't enter into the equation.
I've been following this story since July 2003. It dies down and then flares up months later. And each time it flares up people have jumped to Rove's defense with the same bogus rationalizations. There will be a resolution soon (at least by October 2005) where we'll known one way or the other whether Rove will be charged. I'm not holding my breath. I think there's enough wiggle room in the "knowingly" part for Rove to escape. I hope I'm wrong. But Bush will be fighting like mad to keep Rove around. Without Rove, Bush isn't elected governor of Texas, let alone President. It says something to me when the man most responsible for your success is morally bankrupt.
A couple of other surprises... Fitzgerald is running a very tight ship. Most of the leaks have come from people who are the subject of the investigation. All accounts that I have read which quote someone inside the investigation also make it a point that the sources wish to remain anonymous because Fitzgerald doesn't want any leaks. So it's hard to say what criminal charges are being considered. There's a huge list of people who have given testimony. Once again, we'll have to wait and see.
There is one aspect that is troubling me, and that's Judith Miller being incarcerated. Much as I think she deserves to be in jail for serving as a pipeline for Chalabi disinformation in the lead up to the Iraq War, I don't think she should be jailed for refusing to name her sources. Even though this administration is notorious for abusing anonymous sourcing to spread bullshit, I still think we should be bending over backwards to allow geniune whistleblowers the option. Of course, I'm open to the argument that Judith Miller might as well be a member of the administration, there's no fourth in that estate. Pretty much the only rational for incarceration that would sit well with me was if Miller had actually passed along classified information, rather than just receiving it.
I guess I see this incident as a litmus test. Most of the people I know and talk to, whatever their political persuasion, are not happy with CIA agents getting outed as part of a partisan political attack. That's to put it mildly. The few who see nothing wrong will, in my opinion, never see anything wrong as far as this administration goes. They are the true believers. Party-over-all and all that. I'm almost to the point of thinking that they see themselves as members of a political party first and citizens of a country second. Almost .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For those of us who actually pay attention to testimony under oath, here's another Bush administration appointee behaving in an unpatriotic and unethical manner-
Quote:www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/cia.leak/index.html
Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff [ Libby] confirmed the identity of a CIA agent [to Matt Cooper]
This pretty much confirms CIA sources: a perpetrator is in the Old Executive Office Building. I challenge anyone to find out who actually works in that building; as a matter of security, it's not easy to find a building directory on-line or anyplace else for that matter. In fact, I believe I posted the info when the leak and its potential sources became a news item two years ago. But to make things easier on everyone, there are two relevant offices in that building- the office of the Vice President (Cheney) and the Office of the National Security Advisor (at the time Rice).
Don't forget that we have not found the person who actually told NOVAK about Valerie Plame. There is still a major untold story here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So let me get this right, now your story is that Rove didn't have anything to do with it?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree. Many people on the left accept her incarceration on the basis that she was protecting government retaliation against a whistleblower. BUt the ruling seems pretty broad. Unfortunately, it contains eight redacted pages (due to sensitive information) which would probably explain why this particular ruling should be an exception. Here is an interesting view: editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000977538
There is one aspect that is troubling me, and that's Judith Miller being incarcerated. Much as I think she deserves to be in jail for serving as a pipeline for Chalabi disinformation in the lead up to the Iraq War, I don't think she should be jailed for refusing to name her sources.
Until the reason for her incarceration is made clear and/or the limits of the ruling are tested, Miller's incarceration ALREADY has had a chilling effect on investigative reporting. The Cleveland Plain Dealer spiked two articles based on confidential sources. Miller has effectively wrapped herself in the mantle of a reporter, and it's impossible to touch her without touching everyone else. www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/07/10/news/scribes.
php
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I have been clear throughout my postings that there is more than one source. Just to make it pellucidly clear, I underlined another in my previous post.
So let me get this right, now your story is that Rove didn't have anything to do with it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
response to various topics:
Quote:Previously answered - constitutional first amendment protection. As to dodge words, that's a lengthy topic I don't have time for. But it was quite inventive of you to pick an argument with uninvolved people and then blame me. You really gave yourself a stellar reputation with that one. Does it feel good?
Curious. I don’t remember either you or rue calling for Churchill’s suspension.
Quote:In my job I too need to keep certain information confidential. With that responsibility one becomes sensitized to approaches toward that information. The standard reply is something like - I'm not able to discuss that. (Repeat as needed.) Perhaps he was caught short the first time. But if that mastermind Rove couldn't figure out a way to keep his mouth shut the second, third and fourth time the topic he shouldn't have been discussing came up, he doesn’t deserve his security clearance.
It is possible that Rove ... may have been a victim of a reporter’s fishing scam.
Quote:And what are the standards specifically?
There are different standards for different things.
Quote:Which he did not get. According to UN charter NO country is allowed to attack another country under the GUISE of UN action without a SPECIFIC authorizing vote. It was absent. US action in Iraq was illegal. Honestly, get yourself a different excuse.
President Bush was fully within his rights to go to the UN and to seek "severe consequences".
Quote:So, in your opinion, were they there?
we never found the "massive stockpiles" but that does not mean they did not exist in the recent past, only that we could not find them.
Quote:Now there you go again. Equating the lack of legal consequences (up until now) with virginal virtue. Despite the fact you've already admitted he certainly talked with several reporters about Valerie Plame. C'mon man! Get a grip on yourself! Something most assuredly did happen. Whether it was a crime or not is a completely different question.
I do not believe Karl Rove has done anything wrong and until someone is able to prove otherwise he will remain "innocent until proven guilty".
Quote:I remember it from back then. I tried my darndest to find out and, despite the fact that I consider myself to be pretty good at that kind of thing, didn't come up with anything after a few hours of searching. I still have some envy that you managed and I could not.
I challenge anyone to find out who actually works in that building ...
Wow, that's a broad scatter of topics.
Bye all for now, it's back to several more hours of following the money.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
This from the guys that have assumed the "entire Bush administration is corrupt" and Karl Rove is an underhanded criminal before the Special Prosecutor has even filed a single charge against him? Please, spare me the histrionics and melodrama.
AJ, I've been trying to follow your reasoning throughout this thread, and it appears to me to come down to the following: "If Rove had done anything wrong, he would have been indicted and/or convicted. Rove hasn't been indicted or convicted, so therefore he hasn't done anything wrong". In other words, you are using a lack of a result as a priori evidence of a lack of any wrongful conduct (and here I'm only referring to the Plame affair, not the rest of Rove's political record). In addition to its complete circularity, this is some very seriously fallacious reasoning. Logic just doesn't work this way (illogic, on the other hand, flies free....).
Quote:
I do not believe Karl Rove has done anything wrong and until someone is able to prove otherwise he will remain "innocent until proven guilty". Demonize me all you want but you cannot change the facts.
Wow! That's a pretty amazing assertion. Since you were rather unspecific here, I'll take my leave to re-raise the issue of the rest of Rove's record. Do you know anything about Rove's political record? It makes an open sewer smell like perfume. I'll not repeat the specifics that others have already noted in this thread, but I do have to wonder what a political operative would have to do to have it be considered "wrong" in your 'verse.
I shake my head in wonderment.
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lynch asks:
Quote:The answer is
Where are the facts that Karl Rove did something wrong?
Quote:If Rove said the information was about to be declassified he obviously knew it was classified.
But Cooper said he was told by Mr Rove that information was about to be “declassified” and made public to discredit the woman’s husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had accused the Bush Administration of exaggerating the threat of Iraq’s weapons.
Cooper said Mr Rove told him that Mr Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying: “I’ve already said too much.”
Cooper said yesterday: “This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting . . . but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.” Cooper also disclosed for the first time that the other White House source for an article he wrote about Mr Wilson in July 2003 was Vice-President Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter ” Libby, who also did not mention Ms Plame by name.
Rove was required to sign Standard Form 312 (SF-312) which requires not only that he not divulge classified information, but also that
Quote:Both Rove and Libby have certainly violated the terms of their security clearance. Now that Bush has an idea how deep in shit Rove is, Bush is flip-flopping from his original stance to fire anyone who was "involved" to anyone who is convicted of a crime. Criminals will protect criminals, I guess.
Before ... confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, ... confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Note to readers: I have selectively edited the post to which I am responding. Please scroll up a bit if you’d care to see the context in which it arose.
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Since we are analyzing each other now, let me see if I understand YOUR position. In short, since no one can PROVE Karl Rove is innocent, therefore he must be guilty of wrong doing because you suspect he is up to no good. Did I capture it?
This is not my reasoning at all, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the post you are responding to. Some of my reasoning as to the point of this thread can be analyzed in my earlier posts in this thread, though I have yet to throw my full opinion as to Rove into the breech. Further, I wasn’t analyzing you at all (unless you have no personality or life beyond your posts on this board - I presume that you do). My post covered 2 independent points, neither of which you have responded to. I hope you will actually read this post and think about it before you respond.
The first point was a serious intellectual criticism of your reasoning process, to which I shall return below. It’s actually much the most important of the two, but the second is easier:
The second point was a pair of questions, and I must confess that I was rather snarky in the way that I asked them. I apologize for that; I actually try to avoid the ad hominem, though I fail more often than I’d like. But, there really are 2 serious questions here that have great bearing on how I and others on this thread might interpret your posts. So, please let me try to restate them in a less snarky manner:
1) What is the degree of your awareness of (and what are your sources for said awareness) of Karl Rove’s record as a political operative, in the GHW Bush Presidency, in Texas in the GW Bush political era, and during the GW Bush Presidency? Does that awareness include recognition that there are multiple credible allegations that he (Rove) has engaged in ethically questionable conduct (not proof, not indictments, but allegations that have been publicly acknowledged as credible even by mainstream Republicans)? Any recognition at all?
2) I honestly want to know what kinds of conduct by political operatives within the US you might consider to be wrongdoing in the light of national and international politics, where the reputations, careers and the lives of human beings (Americans and others) might be at risk. This is not remotely trivial; killing is obviously beyond the pale, but what about character assassination or career destruction? Please tell us what you think is acceptable. I suggest you might want to consider your answer carefully in the light of your defense of Rove in the thread above.
Quote:
Pathetic.
Disgusting
Andrew Lynch.
This are quotes from your response to my previous post (and I’m not being snarky by pointing out that out). Nor in pointing out that those statements are not a particularly effective form of reasoning or argument.
So now we get to the (much) more important point:
You have not responded to my most serious criticism, about your reasoning. As best I can parse it, your arguments (repeated multiplex throughout this thread) amount to a syllogism, which, if properly followed, is an extremely powerful form of logical argument. A syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning, in which two premises (or three or a few more, in the expansive form of formal logic), are put forth. A conclusion is drawn from the premises, and if the premises are complete and correct, then the conclusion is necessarily correct. That’s how deductive logic works.
So here’s the lynchaj syllogism (repetitively argued by him and others on this thread):
Premise 1) If Rove had done anything wrong, he would have been indicted and/or convicted.
Premise 2) Rove has not been indicted or convicted.
Conclusion: Rove didn’t do anything wrong.
This is a deductively valid argument as stated, but all such arguments depend on two absolutel
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
perfessergee, I wish I could hug you. This is exactly what Andrew needs to wrap his head around, but I posess neither the background in logic nor the eloquence to express it to him.
Andrew, don't blow this off, man.
Absorb.
This does compute Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm gonna have to do the unexpected here and defend AJ.
His statements, as they were written and as analyzed by perfessergee, do lead to the logical fallacy described above. But, I think it's mostly a matter of presentation. I think (and correct me if I'm wrong AJ) that his point was something more like this: Rove hasn't been convicted of anything yet and it's wrong to treat him as if he's guilty until he has been.
I certainly feel differently. From my point of view, the wrong that was done has already been openly acknowledged. To me, the wrong part was starting a whispering campaign to damage the credibility of a critic. It just seems underhanded and something that ought to be beneath officials at the White House.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME