• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Source in CIA leaked named?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Macam said:
They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson "lied". Although Joe did not lie let's follow that reasoning to the logical conclusion. Let's use the same standard for the Bush Administration. Here are the facts. Bush's lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000. Joe Wilson has not killed anyone. He tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world.

Ugh, WHEN will liberal media outlets learn? This paragraph invalidated every fucking point this guy made, and there were a lot of good ones. But because he had to include his "Bush lied about war!" crap, no one will take it seriously. Ugh. Pisses me off to no end.
 
Nerevar said:
Ugh, WHEN will liberal media outlets learn? This paragraph invalidated every fucking point this guy made, and there were a lot of good ones. But because he had to include his "Bush lied about war!" crap, no one will take it seriously. Ugh. Pisses me off to no end.

Ya know, I've got a agree with you 100% here. I was reading that absorbing what seem to be good points, then he's gotta take that route damn near invalidating the rest of his stuff. What the hell does that have to do with the Rove situation?WHY is he going there? It's redundant, it's a point that's been made a million times, and those who want to believe/disbelieve that have already made up their minds.
 
Nerevar said:
Ugh, WHEN will liberal media outlets learn? This paragraph invalidated every fucking point this guy made, and there were a lot of good ones. But because he had to include his "Bush lied about war!" crap, no one will take it seriously. Ugh. Pisses me off to no end.

Don't you find it odd though that it all it takes is a "Bush lied, Many Died" mantra to have people disregard something as unethical, perhaps even illegal, as this case though? Seriously. If, say, we catch Rove clubbing baby seals while fellating a cucumber are we still able to completely excise that horrible vision from the public record as long as the phrase "WMD's" appears in the same sentence? I guess that's more an indictment of the current political climate than of common fucking sense. I hope.
 
bob_arctor said:
Also, remember what I said last week about what would happen to Rove:

He'll take an initial media beating only to eventually be commended for having the courage to give up his name so poor Matthew Cooper won't have to go to the Big House. Mark my words.


It's already happening:

In Case You Missed It: Karl Rove, Whistleblower
From The Wall Street Journal

Review & Outlook
July 13, 2005

Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize--perhaps the next iteration of the "Truth-Telling" award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.

For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.

Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. ... But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.

On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail. ...

In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.

If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. ...
 
I'm getting as disgusted as I've ever been with this administration. Christ, even when they're pushing some idiotic, backwards fundie agenda, they're at least basing that on some sort of principles, however twisted they may be. Now they're just sinking into outright amorality.
 
shantyman said:
It's already happening:
If I was a burgeoning bulemic, I'd read this article to coax that Big Mac I just downed back up the gullet. It's amazing that every time there's a possible fuck-up, and an obvious one like this, in actuality, THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. Holy Fuck! It isn't exactly as what it seems! Occam's Razor? It's dull, rusty, and quite possibly uprooting pubes as it gristles on by.
 
The spin is incredible. Is WSJ saying that Saddam *was* buying nuclear materials from Niger?

The bigger point is being lost here-- Bush was trying to build a case against Saddam and somebody went to check it out and found it to be false (very possibly for political reasons,so?)-- and now the guy who tried to smear him is being called a hero?

Amazing.
 
Novak already talked to the grand jury, but that testimony is sealed during the investigation. We'll find out what he said when the prosecutor decides whether or not to charge anyone.

The Wall Street Journal editorial writers can be stomach-turning at times.
 
It's a good thing the RNC elected a new chairman earlier this year, otherwise the talking points would be much different.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/12/212657/550

From a September 30, 2003, edition of Hardball:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Don't you think it's more serious than Watergate, when you think about it?

RNC CHAIRMAN ED GILLESPIE: I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative -- it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: It'd be worse than Watergate, wouldn't it?

GILLESPIE: It's -- Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it. It's not just politics.


:lol
 
Nerevar said:
Ugh, WHEN will liberal media outlets learn? This paragraph invalidated every fucking point this guy made, and there were a lot of good ones. But because he had to include his "Bush lied about war!" crap, no one will take it seriously. Ugh. Pisses me off to no end.


Um...maybe because its the truth. Your post reminds me of the "nazi-theory" (The theory that states that once someone brings up nazis in conversation, he's is considered to have "lost" the arguement). Although I understand you're reasoning, the fact of the matter is that its true and nothing proves that more than the RNC talking points...bash Joe Wilson. Rove and others see where all this is leading...its a reminder to eveyone that Bush failed (lied) and people like Wilson who should have been hailed as something of a hero and whistle blower is being run through the mud...again.
 
You've got to admit it's awe-inspiring the lenghts that Repubs will go to defend their own (DeLay anyone?). Anyway, this is all incredibly amusing (the McClellan stuff is priceless!) even though I know in the end not a scratch will be left on Rove.


I mean, what'll get damaged? His political reputation? :lol :lol :lol
 
Sal Paradise Jr said:
I mean, what'll get damaged? His political reputation? :lol :lol :lol

Usually it's the Republicans that chuckle when they think about the man's political reputation, he's just head & sholders above anyone else on the contemporary polical landscape when it comes to strategies and winning. I mean the man's only been kicking democratic ass on a national level like you'd beat the proverbial red-headed step-child since 2000. Lets see here, two presidential elections (of which on the 2nd James Carville stated, “If Bush wins reelection, it will be the chief most political accomplishment in my lifetime…) , full control of Congress with a majority that has done nothing but grow, they are about to make the Supreme Court decidedly conservative for the next 20-odd years... I can't imagine why democrats are trying to get some blood in the water on this man.

Anyone for a pictoral history of the Rove effect?

2002 Midterms:
carville.gif


2004 Presidential Election (Yes, thats an egg on his face after stating previously, "If Bush wins reelection, it will be the chief most political accomplishment in my lifetime…")
103924.jpg
 
Before going national, Rove kicked Democrats out of the state of Texas. There's nothing strategic or genius about what he does. The man has no shame and will do ANYTHING for a political win. People are surprised at the gay bashing that took place during the general election last year, but 10 years before that, he initated a whisper campaign against then Gov. Ann Richards puporting that she was a lesbian and brought along a few of her lesbian friends.

He doesn't attack a candidate's weak point, instead opting to slash and burn his opponent's greatest strength. See: John McCain, John Kerry and their tours of duty.

The guy is pure scum.
 
Another article, this issue seems to be gaining a bit of steam (lol at page name bush_leak_dc):

Article
Bush says won't prejudge CIA case, Rove's role

By Adam Entous 1 hour, 31 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President Bush said on Wednesday he would withhold judgment for now on the role of his top political adviser, Karl Rove, in a brewing controversy over who leaked a
CIA agent's identity.
ADVERTISEMENT

With Rove seated behind him during a Cabinet meeting, Bush said there was a "serious investigation" under way into who leaked the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame and that he would not "prejudge" the outcome until the federal investigation is completed.

Bush stopped short of issuing a public vote of confidence in Rove as some Republicans had expected. "He was not asked that specific question," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

"As I indicated yesterday, every person who works here at the White House, including Karl Rove, has the confidence of the president."

Some prominent Democrats have called on Bush to fire Rove, the architect of his two presidential election victories and now his deputy chief of staff, or block his access to classified information. Bush had pledged to dismiss any leakers in the Plame case but has not said whether he would follow through if Rove was found to be responsible.

"I have instructed every member of my staff to fully cooperate in this investigation. I also will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports," Bush told reporters in response to a question.

"We're in the midst of an ongoing investigation and I will be more than happy to comment further once the investigation is completed."

The comments were Bush's first on Rove since reports earlier this week that the adviser, talked to at least one reporter -- Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper -- about Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified in a newspaper column in July 2003.

Rove's lawyer was quoted as saying his client did not mention Plame by name.

Faced with jail if he did not discuss his sources, Cooper agreed last week to testify in the investigation. He appeared before the grand jury on Wednesday.

New York Times reporter Judith Miller refused to testify about sources she spoke to on the story and was jailed.

REPUBLICANS START DEFENDING ROVE

White House spokesman Scott McClellan broke his silence on the case on Tuesday and said Bush continued to have confidence in Rove.

Republicans accused Democrats of mounting a smear campaign against Rove.

"It is just another politically motivated part of their agenda," said Rep. Deborah Pryce (news, bio, voting record), an Ohio Republican.

Rep. Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record) of Missouri, the third ranking House Republican, said, "I don't see a significant level of concern" about Rove within Republican ranks.

Bush and McClellan have balked at answering key questions, such as what Rove has told Bush about his involvement in the case, when Rove told him and what would happen if Rove was singled out by the prosecutors.

McClellan said the White House was asked to remain silent by prosecutors investigating who leaked Plame's identity, an act Plame's husband, diplomat Joseph Wilson, said was meant to discredit him for criticizing Bush's
Iraq policy in 2003.

On Tuesday, Bush did not respond to a reporter's shouted question about whether he intended to dismiss Rove.

In September and October 2003, McClellan rejected as "ridiculous" any suggestion that Rove was involved in the Plame leak.

When asked at an Oct. 10, 2003, briefing whether Rove and two other White House aides had ever told any reporter that Plame worked for the CIA, McClellan said: "I spoke with those individuals... and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this... the leaking of classified information."

(Additional reporting by Steve Holland and Donna Smith)

Oh, and here's a picture to go along with the article:

mdf471807.jpg

Is Rove actually smirking?? What the?
 
Maybe jail wouldn't be such a bad thing for Rove? Afterall, I'm sure the prison offers some college courses; it'd be a good time to finally finish up that college degree.
 
Guileless said:
The Wall Street Journal editorial writers can be stomach-turning at times.

I couldn't agree more.

If anyone's curious about Rove's past political troubles, James Moore, who covered Texas politics for the last twenty years, has a good summary. This is basically the abbreviated version of his book Bush's Brain (which is about Rove really, not Bush). As he notes, you'll see a similar pattern.

Also worth noting, Luskin (Rove's Lawyer) added that Fitzgerald (the federal prosectuor) told him Rove is a “subject” of the investigation.

To whomever was noting that Larry Johnson's comment in the article I linked about Bush lying before the war, it doesn't invalidate his points. It's not even the real point of the article, it's a throwaway comment and anyone that disregards the article because of that one comment has serious analytical issues (this isn't directed at the poster, just the comments).

What's more important about that article is that it clearly establishes from a first-hand report that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert agent (as some people have begun to question even that aspect), and moreover, clearly outlines the consequences of the outing. This is not, as Republican chariman Ken Mehlman said on Russert's show, a "political smear" by Democrats. This is a national security issue and moreover, such phrasing is incredibly ironic. Karl Rove redefined "political smear" not just against Democrats, but against fellow Republicans including John McCain in the 2000 election. Novak should be held accountable but as Guileless noted his testimony is sealed. A few press shows have had him on and rail on him a bit, but not really with any real force. Novak's sitting pretty at the moment unfortunately, while Miller, who never even wrote an article concerning the subject matter, is in jail.
 
Macam said:
Novak's sitting pretty at the moment unfortunately, while Miller, who never even wrote an article concerning the subject matter, is in jail.
That's because Novak talked, while Miller didn't. Why should Novak "be held accountable" for anything? He's a journalist who wrote an article. If Rove broke the law and outed Plame, he should be held accountable; not the folks he leaked to.
 
APF said:
That's because Novak talked, while Miller didn't. Why should Novak "be held accountable" for anything? He's a journalist who wrote an article. If Rove broke the law and outed Plame, he should be held accountable; not the folks he leaked to.

Well, didn't Novak actually use her name? Isn't he equally as guilty as his source then?
 
bob_arctor said:
Well, didn't Novak actually use her name? Isn't he equally as guilty as his source then?
Yes he did.

Robert Novak: Mission to Niger
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
 
bob_arctor said:
Well, didn't Novak actually use her name? Isn't he equally as guilty as his source then?
Y/M after the whole deal was leaked to the press? According to his story he verified it with the CIA and wasn't given a strong warning against publishing the info. Seems like the cat was already out of the bag, and Novak didn't know he was really 'outing' someone. But IANAL, etc.

(In my own personal opinion, unless you specifically say "this is off the record, don't print it," once it's leaked it may as well be public information; that's why you shouldn't leak shit.)
 
Daily Howler said:
What were Rove’s motives in speaking with Cooper? We don’t have the slightest idea. But the impression was going around that Cheney had sent Wilson off to Niger, and the White House did have every right to correct this false impression.

One more question: What did the White House think of Wilson at this time? Again, we have no way of knowing. But right from Day One, Wilson has been pompous, grandiose and extremely unreliable. He made endless misstatements, and he didn’t seem to grasp the simple logic of the matter at hand. He was savaged in that Senate report—and none of the Dems stepped up to defend him. Almost surely, Rove thought Wilson was a kook and an asshole. Unfortunately, it isn’t clear he was wrong.

But so what? To this day, Wilson’s a Sainted Liberal Icon. Today’s liberal want to be happy but dumb—just as dumb as pseudo-conservatives have been for the past several decades. He wants to be fed stupid tales, in which his side is always right, and the other side is wickedly wrong. And no, he doesn’t want ambiguity! Luckily, liberal Grand Inquisitors, with their own mumbo-jumbo, are there to throw sweet feed to the herd. As stampeding liberals munch the sweet hay, can you hear what the herders are saying?

Bob Somerby rocks. The liberals are being very, very stupid by tying their horses to Joe Wilson. Spuriously, the Republitards are right in badging Wilson a liar; his stories rarely hold up. Thankfully, though, Wilson being a dipshit doesn't make the outing of his wife justifiable, nor does it make the yellowcake documents magically unforged -- that's where the bawling wingnuts steer awry.

Smart libs need to kick Wilson to the curb.
 
My question is... why did Rove give Cooper the go-ahead regarding his name, though?

Is it because Time's documents and notes already had his name on there?
 
I love the "Endorsed Candidate X for office" talking point. No matter who's complaining about what, it can be used to belittle their complaint. It just comes down to "Of course he'd say that; he doesn't want the president to succeed!", or "Regardless of this complaint, he still supports the president, doesn't he?"
 
ronito said:
You should really listen to Sean Hannity talking about this. The best bit of unintentional comedy I've ever heard.

I want my TV to remain intact. It'd be better if Alan Colmes weren't such a pussy, but dem the breaks on the RNC's surrogate station.
 
ronito said:
You should really listen to Sean Hannity talking about this. The best bit of unintentional comedy I've ever heard.

Ugh. I'm listening to it now. It's STUNNING how capable the man is at being intentionally ignorant. He's doing his job, all right.
 
GG-Duo said:
My question is... why did Rove give Cooper the go-ahead regarding his name, though?

Is it because Time's documents and notes already had his name on there?

The Times was gonna give that info regardless of Rove. And the info implicates him. By giving the go ahead, he has some wiggle room to save face or lie.

I hope that Karl Rove is fired, as Bush pledged, and that he is indicted for Treason, the crime he commited. If Bush knew and gave the go ahead, he would be an accomplice and should be impeached. This is far worse than any single scandal since Nixon, even though not on the scale of public notice. Nixon ordered a break in, Clinton lied about a BJ, but if Bush had anything to do with this he commited an act of treason, and endagered the life of an undercover CIA agent as political payback.

The only thing that brings a smile to my face is that no Republican can defend this administration on the basis of patriotism, EVER. Hopefully it'll also mean a swift death to the USA Patriot Act becoming permanent.
 
909er said:
I hope that Karl Rove is fired, as Bush pledged, and that he is indicted for Treason, the crime he commited. If Bush knew and gave the go ahead, he would be an accomplice and should be impeached. This is far worse than any single scandal since Nixon, even though not on the scale of public notice. Nixon ordered a break in, Clinton lied about a BJ, but if Bush had anything to do with this he commited an act of treason, and endagered the life of an undercover CIA agent as political payback.

The only thing that brings a smile to my face is that no Republican can defend this administration on the basis of patriotism, EVER. Hopefully it'll also mean a swift death to the USA Patriot Act becoming permanent.

Judging by Bush's past pledges, I'd say it's safe to say that none of this will ever happen. And I can assure you that Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, Liddy Dole, and company can and probably will defend this administration on patriotism any day of the week. I mean, 9/11. Did I mention 9/11? I think you forgot 9/11 and we should never forget 9/11.
 
Macam said:
Judging by Bush's past pledges, I'd say it's safe to say that none of this will ever happen. And I can assure you that Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, Liddy Dole, and company can and probably will defend this administration on patriotism any day of the week. I mean, 9/11. Did I mention 9/11? I think you forgot 9/11 and we should never forget 9/11.

There has been a trend of backlash against this administration lately. Even among Republican politicians. With the 2006 Congressional elections coming up, Republican politicians from moderate states will be put in a hard place. They can either defend an administration whose key advisor and member has been accused of high crimes agains the United States, or cut their losses with the lame duck administration and shoot at re-election. Depending on how this goes, the Republicans have alot to lose. If Rove is fired and/or indicted for Treason, suspicion will fall on the whole administration. If at this time Bush tries to push through far right supreme court nominees, he will lose those moderate counties. The 2006 election could potential make the Congress majority blue again.

Of course, that's what you get when you have 2 failed wars, one based entirely on false info, and the most vocal and visible man behind the GOP strategy possibly facing Treason charges. You get what you have coming.
 
909er said:
There has been a trend of backlash against this administration lately.

Of course, that's what you get when you have 2 failed wars, one based entirely on false info, and the most vocal and visible man behind the GOP strategy possibly facing Treason charges. You get what you have coming.

Unfortunately, that trend of backlash has emerged countless times and proven to be of little real substance at the voting booths where it counts. Frankly, it's easy to get a distorted picture of that backlash when you follow politics and more so when you do so online. The vast majority of the public simply doesn't seem to care about the implications of the Valerie Plame case any more than they did about the reasons leading into the Iraq war or any of the other countless half-truths, scandals, or wrongdoing on behalf of this adminstration. If this administration gets what they have coming, they'd all be shoveling shit in Hell, but somehow I doubt that'll happen. </angry Left>
 
:lol That last post is on point...Bush had no business winning the last election, and he not only did so with a bigger winning margin then the last one, the Republicans swept the ballot. So yeah, I'll believe they'll "get what's coming to them" next poll time when I actually see it.
 
Republicans said the same thing about Clinton, "where's the outrage?" etc. Most people are just not committed ideolouges and don't get worked up about this type of thing, rightly or wrongly. People that listen to talk radio all day or work for moveon.org are the exceptions.

At any rate, popular outrage is beside the point here because if there's enough evidence that Rove broke the law, he will be indicted and tried and it's hard to imagine him not resigning under those circumstances. If not, the grand jury will not indict him.

I don't think this is as serious as Iran-Contra.
 
Macam, unfortunately, it's true. People don't vote because random politicos are treacherous assholes, or because a war their kids aren't dying in was founded on lies, or because another nation they don't have ties to has been ruthlessly exploited by US interests; they vote when they feel threatened at home by things like TEH GAYS ARE MAKING TEH MARRIAGE or TEH SECULARS ARE KEEPING KIDS FROM GAWD or TEH HIPPIES COST ME A JOB or TEH ISLAMS ARE GONNA BLOWS UP MAH SHOPPING MALL ORANGE ALERT.

If Kerry has spent less time defending himself against spurious charges and more time telling folks he'd reduce the lower class tax burden and get everyone a decent job, he might not have been so thoroughly Roved over.
 
Ok. I should've been careful what I wished for. Now I wish the news would report on something else. Really, I don't need a 15 minute update to tell me there is nothing new. Simple 30 seconds would suffice. I'm not saying they should stop, people need to know what's going on with Bush's top advisor, however, they don't need to kill us with it. Between the liberal media thumbing their noses and conservative media calling Rove an american hero, and the fact that nothing will ever come out of this I can't help but feel that perhaps I spoke too soon.
 
I refuse to post in this thread as it is an ongoing investigation and it would not be proper for me to comment at this time. Believe me, we all want the truth to surface and no one wants to get to the bottom of this more than I do. Oh and Scott McClellan.
 
Macam said:
To whomever was noting that Larry Johnson's comment in the article I linked about Bush lying before the war, it doesn't invalidate his points. It's not even the real point of the article, it's a throwaway comment and anyone that disregards the article because of that one comment has serious analytical issues (this isn't directed at the poster, just the comments).

If you're going to talk in a strictly analytical debate, of course it doesn't invalidate his point. But the problem is that once diatribes like these hit the court of opinion a single paragraph like that shreds your credibility. That much is obvious to anyone with their feet firmly planted on the ground. And once your credibility is gone your arguments can be easily dismissed by the talking heads. If the liberal left (which I consider myself to be part of) want to get taken seriously then they need to keep their heads firmly on their shoulders and give "just the facts", not resort to these adolescent anti-Bush temper tantrums.
 
Macam said:
Unfortunately, that trend of backlash has emerged countless times and proven to be of little real substance at the voting booths where it counts. Frankly, it's easy to get a distorted picture of that backlash when you follow politics and more so when you do so online. The vast majority of the public simply doesn't seem to care about the implications of the Valerie Plame case any more than they did about the reasons leading into the Iraq war or any of the other countless half-truths, scandals, or wrongdoing on behalf of this adminstration. If this administration gets what they have coming, they'd all be shoveling shit in Hell, but somehow I doubt that'll happen. </angry Left>

Let me elaborate on why I think the 2006 elections will return a few seats to the Dems. Rove was behind some of the dirtiest smear campaigns the Republicans have done in recent times. Who remembers how McCain lost the primaries to Bush because of ads attacking McCain in the south saying he had a illegetimate black baby (who was in fact, his adopted Bangladeshi daughter) with a prostitute? How about the Swift Boat campaign that attacked Kerry's combat record, until the group was found to be full of liers (such as people who never served with him commenting on his combat decisions they supposedly saw up close)? Texas has a far right fanatic governer because of Roves campaign ideas. Rove is an evil genious. Without him, and the smear of treason and all the other shit that's been happening, I just can't see Republicans doing as well as they did last election. They will lose seats, I willing to put money down on that.
 
Even if Rove was fired as the president's chief political advisor, I'd be very skeptical that he'd simply vanish. He's too valuable to many Republicans and it's more likely that he'd simply continue to pull strings in another role. He's done similar things in Texas politics for decades and it landed him in D.C. alongside the president. I'd venture to guess he'd simply be a high in demand independent political consultant or some such alternative if he lost his position....but I don't see that hapenning under this administration.

Moreover, I sincerely doubt that in a year or two from now that the public will have any recollection of the entire Plame affair (Terri who?), short of the investigation wrapping up around election time and garnering major press. But according to my astronomy chart here, the planets aren't due to line up for another 60,000 years.
 
They say Wilson lied. They say Rove lied. Let's fucking wait until the facts are out..........both parties, jesus christ.
 
Macam said:
Even if Rove was fired as the president's chief political advisor, I'd be very skeptical that he'd simply vanish. He's too valuable to many Republicans and it's more likely that he'd simply continue to pull strings in another role. He's done similar things in Texas politics for decades and it landed him in D.C. alongside the president. I'd venture to guess he'd simply be a high in demand independent political consultant or some such alternative if he lost his position....but I don't see that hapenning under this administration.

Moreover, I sincerely doubt that in a year or two from now that the public will have any recollection of the entire Plame affair (Terri who?), short of the investigation wrapping up around election time and garnering major press. But according to my astronomy chart here, the planets aren't due to line up for another 60,000 years.

If he indeed outed a undercover CIA agent, theres a good chance he's gonna be in a jail cell until 2008(his pardon). And the party of patriotism will not want to be associated with a person that can rightfully and legally be called a traitor, at least not in swing states. You seriously underestimate how big of a thing this is. If the public doesn't remember in 2006, Democrats will MAKE people remember, and chances are they will be the ones forcing an investigation that go to at least 2006 anyway.
 
AssMan said:
They say Wilson lied. They say Rove lied. Let's fucking wait until the facts are out..........both parties, jesus christ.

Facts: Wilson assertion was based on a forged memo, and the administration used it anyway.

Rove is the source, he allowed Cooper to reveal it, and it was also revealed in documents TIME had.

Those documents say that Rove identified Wilson's wife as an undercover CIA agent, just not in name, and that's the excuse currently being used to say Rove didn't commit a crime (more or less the exact same thing Clinton did, the whole "definition" thing).

And btw, I consider myself a Republican ( a real one, back when they believed in states rights, less taxes and govt spending, etc). I willingly attack Republicans now only because I never recall joining the party of fascists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom