Is Rove It?

Is it Karl Rove?

This past weekend, a pundit and a journalist each reported that Rove, Bush's uber-strategist (and now, officially, the deputy White House chief of staff), was a source for Time magazine's Matt Cooper, who has resisted cooperating with a court order to reveal his sources to Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating the Bush administration leak that revealed undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame. (Plame, a.k.a Valerie Wilson, is the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a Bush administration critic). Last week, after the Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal from Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller (who also was subpoenaed by Fitzgerald for her sources), Time magazine decided to cooperate with Fitzgerald and turn over Cooper's notes and emails. (Cooper said he disagreed with--but understood--his employer's decision; Miller and the Times vowed to continue resisting.) Appearing on The McLaughlin Group--which was taped on Friday--commentator Lawrence O'Donnell said that the documents handed over byTime to Fitzgerald would reveal that Rove had been Cooper's source. The next day, Michael Isikoff of Newsweek posted a piece that reported,

The e- mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article.

O'Donnell's comment and Isikoff's report set off a wave of reaction. I received numerous emails proclaiming "Rove is it, he's the [deleted] who revealed Plame's identity." But a careful reading of the available facts leads to this unsatisfying conclusion: not so fast.

The issue at hand is the identity of who told conservative columnist Robert Novak that Plame was an undercover CIA official working on counterproliferation (that is, anti-WMD) matters. On July 14, 2003, Novak published a piece that was essentially a conveyor belt for White House criticism of Joseph Wilson. A week earlier, Wilson had written a much-noticed op-ed piece in The New York Times that argued that George W. Bush had misled the nation in his January 2003 State of the Union speech by claiming that Iraq had been shopping in Africa for uranium to be used in a nuclear weapons program. In his article, Wilson revealed for the first time that he had been dispatched to Niger in February 2002 to investigate rumors of such Iraqi activity and had reported back that it was highly unlikely that Iraq was procuring weapons-related uranium there. Wilson's article--which followed his previous criticism of the administration for launching the war in Iraq--placed him in the line of fire. Republican and conservative allies of the White House blasted away. In the course of this attack, Novak wrote the piece that outed Wilson's wife and suggested that Wilson's trip to Niger had been a nepotistic junket of some sort.

Novak seemed to attribute his disclosure about Plame (which destroyed her career and perhaps threatened anti-WMD operations) to two unnamed "senior administration officials." (I use the word "seemed" because the attribution was technically indirect, though it appears clear these were Novak's sources.) Two days after Novak's column was published, I became the first journalist to write that these two Bush administration sources might have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection act of 1982, which makes it illegal for a government official (not a reporter) to reveal the identity of an undercover intelligence official. (It would not be until September 2003 that the CIA would ask the Justice Department to investigate this leak and an official inquiry would begin. ) Then on July 17, 2003, Time posted a piece by Matthew Cooper, Massimo Calabresi and John Dickerson headlined "A War on Wilson?" The article noted,

And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched [to] Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.

This passage raises several obvious questions. Who told Time about Plame? Were these "government officials" the same as Novak's "two senior administration officials"? And when did these government officials tell Time about Plame? Presumably it was before Novak's column appeared, though these two sentences don't say that outright.

Which brings us to Rove.

His name has emerged in this scandal before. In the summer of 2003, Joseph Wilson appeared at a public event in Seattle and was asked about the investigation of the Plame leak. Wilson replied, "Wouldn't it be fun to see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs?" Wilson subsequently conceded that he had no basis for accusing Rove of leaking his wife's CIA identity. But to explain his wish to see Rove in prison, he pointed to a news report that maintained that Rove had told Hardball's Chris Matthews after the leak that Wilson's wife was "fair game." On October 10, 2003, White House press secretary Scott McClellan was asked if Rove and two other White House aides had ever discussed Valerie Plame with reporters. McClellan said he had spoken to Rove and the others and that they had "assured me they were not involved in this."

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on the Fourth of July, McCain's disingenuous targetting, and Limbaugh's gal pal.

*******

So does the recent revelation place Rove in jeopardy?

Luskin, Rove's lawyer, told Isikoff that Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before the Novak column appeared but that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." He also noted that Rove had appeared before Fitzgerald's grand jury and had signed a waiver that would permit reporters to set aside any confidentiality agreement they had with him and testify about what Rove had told them.

If Luskin is telling the truth, Rove has nothing to fear. But defense lawyers have been known to spin the facts. The contents of Cooper's emails and notes might support or challenge Luskin's account. They might be inconclusive. (You should see my notes sometimes.) That Rove, a top White House aide, spoke to Cooper, who was covering the White House for a major newsmagazine, during this white-hot episode would not be unusual. And the piece Cooper co-wrote covers far more ground than Plame's post at the CIA (which accounted for only two sentences). It is certainly conceivable that Rove was tossing other anti-Wilson information at Cooper (and others) at this point. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, also talked to Time for this article, and he was quoted by name saying that Cheney had been interested in the Niger allegation but didn't know about Wilson's trip to Niger. (After Libby gave permission to Cooper to tell Fitzgerald about their conversations, Cooper did so.)

Rove talking to Cooper days before his piece--and Novak's--was written is an intriguing lead for Fitzgerald. But this does not solve the mystery. Before anyone can expect to see Rove frog-marching, Fitzgerald will have to determine what was said in these conversations. (Perhaps Fitzgerald will continue to pursue Cooper on this point.) [UPDATE: On Tueday, Fitzgerald did just that. He demanded that Cooper testify before his grand jury despite Time's decision to surrender Cooper's emails and notes to Fitzgerald.]

But all the hubbub stirred by the disclosure that Rove was a source for Cooper raises other interesting questions.

* Both the Novak column and the Time piece refer to a plural number of sources for the Plame information. Novak cited "two"; Time referred to "officials." Apparently Rove--or whoever--did not act alone. Shouldn't Fitzgerald be seeking more than one name from Time, Cooper, and the coauthors? Are there other names in the material turned over by Time? Or must Fitzgerald continue his pursuit of Time?

* The Time magazine article, as I've noted, had three co-authors. Why no subpoenas for Cooper's co-writers? Does this suggest that Fitzgerald chased after Cooper because he had information in addition to the article--such as emails, phone logs, etc.--from suspects?

* Rove's lawyer stated that Rove did not "knowingly" disclose classified information. Does this mean he "unknowingly" revealed such information? The distinction is important because the Intelligence Identities Protection Act essentially says that for a crime to have been committed the offender must have realized that he or she was disclosing top-secret information. (Otherwise someone could be prosecuted for making an honest mistake.) True, Rove's mouthpiece also said that Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." But his use of the word "knowingly" can be read by those wishing to see Rove frog-marching as the start of a criminal defense strategy.

It is not too difficult to envision such a defense being concocted should any White House official come to be officially accused. The law only covers government officials with "authorized access to classified information" and who "intentionally" disclose information revealing the identity of "a covert agent...that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal." Consider this scenario. Rove--let's just use him as an example--hears someone at a meeting say, "Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, does counterproliferation work at the CIA and we hear she was involved in sending him to Niger." Then he tells this information to Novak, not realizing that Plame is officially undercover (after all, not every CIA officials work undercover). He could then argue that he did not break the law. (In October 2003, I wrote a piece that reported that a CIA colleague of Plame was working at the National Security Council at the time of the Plame leak. This person might have told White House aides about Plame's connection to Wilson's Niger trip. I suggested that Fitzgerald ought to make sure to interview this possible witness. I did not name the person, who was still working undercover. Since then, I have seen no reference to this person in any news accounts.)

Fitzgerald has a difficult mission. He has to determine (a) who in the administration spoke to Novak and Time--and perhaps other media outfits, like The New York Times--about Wilson, (b) what precisely was said in these conversations, and (c) whether the get-Wilson leakers knew they were slipping classified information to the journalists.

The news about Rove might be of use to Fitzgerald, though I suspect he already knew about Rove and Cooper. And, of course, unless the notes say something like, K.R.: JW's wife--Valerie Plame--works undercover at CIA and this is TOP SECRET, the material turned over by Time may not make the case. Optimistic Bush-bashers can hope that Fitzgerald is also investigating perjury or obstruction of justice violations--which would probably be easier to prove. If White House Aide X testified before the grand jury that s/he did not speak to Reporter Y and notes or emails show otherwise, Fitzgerald could have an easy indictment.

But this is all speculation. And that is mostly what Plame-leak-watchers have had to work with from the start. Fitzgerald's investigation has been remarkably low on leaks. But the recent Rove revelations--whether they aid Fitzgerald or not--have served a valuable purpose. They have focused attention on the original sin: the leak. Ever since Fitzgerald started to go after reporters other than Novak (who apparently has cooperated in some fashion with Fitzgerald for he was not subpoenaed by the prosecutor), this case has been discussed primarily as a media-and-the-law matter. Can reporters shield their sources? What will happen to journalism if Fitzgerald forces Time and The New York Times to give up their sources or if Cooper or Miller have to go to jail to protect these sources?

Those are indeed damn important questions. But the news about Rove has shifted the discussion back to the leak itself and the question, whodunit? It's been two years since the leak occurred. In that time, Bush has expressed little outrage about this despicable act. His White House took no steps of its own to determine who leaked the Plame information. At one point, Bush practically joked that finding the leaker would be rather hard. Even if the leak, for reasons I noted above, does not meet the threshold for a prosecution, it still was a thuggish act and a firing offense. Does Bush want on his staff people who out CIA officials (who are working to protect the nation from the WMD threat) in order to score political points? If Fitzgerald, at the end of the day, says he does not have enough evidence to indict anyone, will Bush take actions of his own to find and boot the leakers? He has given no indication he feels so compelled. On Capitol Hill, the House and Senate intelligence committees, controlled by Republicans, never mounted investigations of their own. And, by the way, Fitzgerald, should he fail to bring indictments, has no obligation at the end of his inquiry to produce a public report that explains what he did and did not uncover.

Rove may be in trouble. Or this could be a false alert. But this did-Rove-do-it bubble is a useful reminder. Two years ago, senior Bush administration officials revealed classified information, undid the career of a national security official, and endangered ongoing anti-WMD programs in order to pursue a political vendetta against a critic, and to date there has been no accountability.

*******************

IT REMAINS RELEVANT, ALAS. SO DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! An UPDATED and EXPANDED EDITION is AVAILABLE in PAPERBACK. The Washington Post says, "This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research.... [I]t does present a serious case for the president's partisans to answer.... Readers can hardly avoid drawing...troubling conclusions from Corn's painstaking indictment." The Los Angeles Times says, "David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case." The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations.... Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." And GEORGE W. BUSH SAYS, "I'd like to tell you I've read [ The Lies of George W. Bush], but that'd be a lie."

For more information and a sample, go to www.davidcorn.com. And see his WEBLOG there.

Comments (48)

1. Good point. This is going to turn out to be a he said she said deal. Whoever leaked this was for sure fully intending to reak havic. But if it is Rove, he is smart and knows the law as described above..."intention". Much the same as "I did not have sex with that woman".

   I do have one burning question that is still eating at me; What top secret information about Bin Ladden and Clinton in the 1990's did Sandy Berger steal and destroy during John Kerry's run for office?

   The question should be, which is worse, disclosing CIA agents or stealing Top Secret Information and destroying it?

   Posted by dancall at 07/05/2005 @ 2:28pm

2. Better yet, we only should pray that there was a "leak" and not another media "forgery"!

   Posted by dancall at 07/05/2005 @ 2:31pm

3. Zero, answer to your question: "On July 2, 2005, Newsweek magazine reported that Novak 'appears to have made some kind of arrangement with the special prosecutor' in the investigation of the White House leak of Plame's covert identity." From Wikipedia

   This will get ya going In August 2004, after other journalists had reported on it, Novak admitted that his son, Alex Novak, is the Director of Marketing for the Swift Boat Veterans' publisher, Regnery Publishing. At the time he said that he didn't "think it relevant." Two months later Salon.com reported that Regnery's owner is also the publisher of Novak's own US$297 newsletter and that Novak is on the board of a foundation whose chief holdings are the stock of Regnery's parent company.

   This guy sounds like a winner!!!

   Posted by dancall at 07/05/2005 @ 4:18pm

4. I find the scenario you suggest plausible -- that Rove heard about Plame at a meeting and thus did not know she was covert.

   However, if that is the case, why wouldn't Rove have told the grand jury that and avoid getting popped for perjury or obstruction? If that scenario is correct, but Rove had earlier told the grand jury something else, he won't be able to use it as a defense without opening himself up to perjury charges.

   And if Rove had just heard it during a meeting and said that to the grand jury, wouldn't the next step for Fitzgerald have been to find out from Rove who he heard it from and try to work his way backwards -- rather than pursuing Cooper and Miller?

   Another possible scenario is that Rove was not the primary source for Cooper or Novak but was instead a confirming source. Perhaps someone else leaked it, the reporters called Rove to see if he could confirm it and Rove said something like, "Yeah, I've heard the same thing."

   Posted by quaoar at 07/05/2005 @ 4:24pm

5. More unanswered questions (from http://hnn.us/blogs/31.html):

   1. How does Fitzgerald know that someone in the know spoke with Judy Miller, who merely conducted interviews on the matter but did not publish an article?

   2. Fitzgerald asked two Newsday reporters to answer questions this spring. They declined, but were not subpoenaed. Why?

   3. Why did Fitzgerald subpoena Time but not the Times?

   4. According to Newsweek, which quotes Rove's lawyer, Rove signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. Yet Cooper, who interviewed Rove for the article he coauthored, has refused to discuss his sources save for Libby, who previously waived his confidentiality agreement. Why won't Cooper tell Fitzgerald what Rove told him?

   Posted by jrick at 07/05/2005 @ 5:35pm

6. Maybe Novak was setting up the press? Hard Conspiracy, I know:)

   Posted by dancall at 07/05/2005 @ 6:07pm

7. Is this why Ashcroft was canned?

   David -- Is it possible that someone higher up in BushCo (e.g. Rove or Cheney) gave Big John the heave-ho because he appointed Fitzgerald? I never believed Ashcroft's reasons for resignation. Agreed, everyone in the press has focused on First Amendment issues, but when will reporters realize that some(one) in the White House may be quaking about having such an incorruptible and apolitical prosecutor running the Plame investigation.

   Posted by VinHill at 07/05/2005 @ 6:33pm

8. I think you've missed the most important point.

   We know now (and knew then) that the Niger reports were fraudulent.

   The fact of the leak indicates that the WH knew the Niger reports were fraudulent. If they believed the accuracy of those reports, then why try to discredit Wilson?

   Why would the WH "leak" the name of Wilson's wife if not to discredit his accurate finding of facts?

   The leak adds to the pile of evidence that the WH orchestrated the fixing of intelligence. Combined with the Downing Street Memo, Cheney's visits to the CIA, Bolton's documented efforts, and the comments of O'Neill, Clark, and Bush himself, already known facts demonstrate a concerted effort to deceive the nation and the Congress.

   As long as the MSM occupies itself with the meaning of "knowingly" or the times and dates when Rove talked to Cooper, etc., the WH laughs. Even with a conviction (after 2 or 3 years) Bush simply pardons Rove.

   Why not? Nobody complained much when Poppy pardoned Weinberger.

   The case against the WH is already a 'slam dunk' for lying to Congress and the American people. Rove won't go to jail until the entire criminal crew is thrown out on the street.

   Posted by wiltmellow at 07/05/2005 @ 8:10pm

9. Wilt, We also know how slick Rove is and how the media and the dems have been playing right into every card he has thrown at them. They better have a credible "leaker" or this is going to be some serious egg on the face of the media...again!

   Posted by dancall at 07/05/2005 @ 10:08pm

10. Sheesh! Thousands of words David, and not a hint that the 9/11 commission has outed Wilson as a total liar -- is that just unimportant in your view, or what?

    Posted by Oldster at 07/05/2005 @ 11:50pm

11. GREAT summary of the facts so far but I have one to add: Plame's uncovering isn't just a present a loss of her career and a danger to her life, it exposed everyone around her. The CIA has had to dismantle her entire cover (as an associate for a company called Brewster, Jennings & Associates that the CIA set-up as an intelligence operation) and the connection it had already forged with ARAMCO, leaving us even more poorly informed about what's happening in the Middle East. This has set back the entire Agency's ability to be effective, not just in the search for WMD but for fighting terrorism AND helping to secure our oil interests.

    Posted by WILDFIRE at 07/06/2005 @ 12:38am

12. Oldster it was the Senate Intel report not the 9/11 Commission that outed Wilson as a total liar.

    Posted by Devils05 at 07/06/2005 @ 01:02am

13. Great take on the Rove excitement.

    One point though; by Novak's statements, Novak contacted the CIA to let them know of his intention to run Plame's name. It would follow that he was doing that because he knew that his article would most likely be damaging to her career or embarassing to Plame and Wilson. It wouldnt make any logical sense for him to be precausious unless he was forwarned that Plame was at the least a sensitive name to print. Whoever peddled the information to Novak, Cooper and Miller knew full well that the story had plenty of color...and to top it all off...the political motives were made clear by Rove calling cable talk show host Chris Matthews to give the ok for open season on Plame.

    In short you have knowledge...and motive...sounds like if Fitzgerald can get the right name...the facts will assemble.

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/06/2005 @ 01:37am

14. Why aren't Robert Novak, Judith Miller, and Matt Cooper being charged with treason? They all conspired with an anonymous White House insider to expose an undercover CIA agent for personnal gain during a time of war. Furthermore they are refusing to identify the spy in the White House who exposed the agent.

    Posted by johnduelge at 07/06/2005 @ 12:29pm

15. John, I agree, but let's not forget to add Sandy Berger to that list.

    Posted by dancall at 07/06/2005 @ 12:31pm

16. As an alternative to the "Rove heard it in a meeting" theory (but with similar exculpatory implications), try this, from Newsweek [msnbc.msn.com]:

    Sources close to the case say prosecutors were interested in discussions Powell had while with President George W. Bush on a trip to Africa in July 2003, just before Plame's identity was leaked to columnist Robert Novak. A senior State Department official confirmed that, while on the trip, Powell had a department intelligence report on whether Iraq had sought uranium from Niger--a claim Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, discounted after a trip to Niger on behalf of the CIA. The report stated that Wilson's wife had attended a meeting at the CIA where the decision was made to send Wilson to Niger, but it did not mention her last name or undercover status.

    The intel report sent to Powell is (we presume) the report discussed in the Senate Intel Subcomittee report which spanked Wilson. The WSJ described it in Oct 2003 [cryptome.org].

    The point - this report was based on the fateful meeting where Ms. Plame presented her husband as the man for the job - attendees would not have been apprised of her covert status, and might very reasonably have guessed that she was at the CIA in some liason capacity.

    Posted by Tom Maguire at 07/06/2005 @ 1:51pm

17. Let's face it, Liberals blammed Bush for 9/11 and were so quick to say that he arranged it so he could start a war. The media did not once cover the fact that the CIA did have communications with Clinton about Bin Ladden starting back in the mid 90's but nothing was done about it. The CIA was also taking a ton of heat from the media, along with the FBI. Again, the story that is not told is that Clinton was told over and over again to take out Bin Ladden, but he did nothing about it. Al Queda was reaking havic around the world blowing up the COLE, hotels, and embassies. Again, a lots of talk from Clinton about Bin Ladden, but nothing from the press after 9/11 that Cliton knew about it, which would take some of the heat off of Bush. The left wing media politized 9/11 because the dems knew that Bush would gain way too much power, instead of addressing the root issue. I am sure this didn;t sit well with the CIA, but sat very well with the Al Queda network for their PR Campaign. OK, if we want to get on why 9/11 was our fault, then lets talk about the middle east prior to 1900 and how Jerusalem was 60% Musleum and then after WWII it was down to 20% and declining, not just the last 20 years of history with the years 92 to 2000 excluded from Liberal history. All our allies allowed that land to be taken over by the immigrant Jews, much like the Europeans took over America. There is a great book called "Divided Jerusalem" by David Wasserstein that cover this. he is Jewish, so hold back calling me an anti Semite! There is way too much history that buffons like Micheal Moore leaves out, which causes revisionist history. Back to the point, my conspiracy is that it will not be proven that Rove had anything to do with this. I believe that either he or someone else in the Bush Administration leaked out the source with full knowledge of the CIA as payback. As Wildfire said above, they had to expose the opperation. One thing that Wildfire did not keep going with is that it created a chance to reorganize a "failing" branch of the CIA, one that will have authority to do what it takes to take out Bin Ladden types. With all this investigation going on on who leaked what to the media, Mr Sandy Berger, Clinton Security Advisor and Right hand man of John Kerry, steals the highest classified documents from a secured area during the last presidential race and "loses" them. Basically, he destroyed all the evidence that had the dialouges between the CIA, Military and Clinton.

    People are way to narrow thinking and blinded by getting their point across to see that all the actions from the last 100 years of our policy has an impact what is going on. I am not a Bush fan, but if you want to try to piece this story together, you have to look at how the government was run during the last 25 years, not just this incident. The CIA set up the media again to make their "internal changes" and to make the left media;s agenda a more liberal America, driving the middle american states to vote republican. It goes back and forth and unfortunately for the progressives, you are being held hostage to the the democrates, not just being shot at by the republicans. They are using you as a shield..you get shot, but they keep their power...WAKE UP!!!

    The organized "machine" is picking off fish in a barrel. Like the Bin Ladden crew, these guys know that change does not come over night. Unlike what the "red states" are complaining about...too much radical change too fast from the blue states. The dems have no leadership and no organization to counter systematic attacks from the right.

    Posted by dancall at 07/06/2005 @ 1:54pm

18. I think Karl Rove himself wrote this article. "David Corn" is probably just a clever psuedonym, short for "corny conspiracy theory."

    Posted by jeck at 07/06/2005 @ 2:30pm

19. -- There is way too much history that buffons like Micheal Moore leaves out, which causes revisionist history. --

    Hmmm, sort of like "WMD" to "WMD programs" to "WMD program intentions" to "unconventional weapons" to "liberating the Iraqi people"? Yeah, I agree: revisionist history is a tactic partaken by morons.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/06/2005 @ 2:32pm

20. Let's get real here. No on in the corporate media will accuse anyone in the Bush administration of anything, ever. There will be innuendoes and stories and hints of scandal, but in the end, there is only fear and complicity.

    Rove will never have to answer for anything....he knows how to cover his rear end, well. He's had a career of slime and dirtbag activity (ask Ann Richards or John McCain), but retains the 'respect' of all who deal with him. Yeah, right. Intimidation breeds respectability.

    Article on why the media mantra is: Thou Shalt Not Accuse!:

    CLICK HERE [tvnewslies.org]

    Posted by Reg at 07/06/2005 @ 3:02pm

21. Kevin, a good friend of mine was with Clinton on 9/11. First words...Bin Ladden did this...to the cameras...I have no idea who did this.

    As a matter of fact Kevin, Bill Clinton even suggested that Iraq was working with Bin Ladden, but we never hear that story. Did you no also hear that Sadam tried to assassinate Bush Sr? that is a internaional no no by UN terms, Kevin!

    All I am asking is that both sides be scrutinized just as hard!

    Kevin, you make my point loud and clear...do we not have evidence through satellite video showing truck loads of "hidden items" crossing the border into Syria? Did Bill Clinton not say Iraq had WMDs, along with multiple dems saying the same thing? Gee, another piece of information left out of your ill informed baby rant.

    I feel like talking to a third grader, but do you know why we found no WMD's? Well Kevin, because when we were bickering with the UN and doing inspections that had not been done in years because Sadam wouldn;t let inspectors in, he had moved them before and during those so called inspections. There was more than 4 months to move the stuff. Again, please refer to the big picture and stop trying to make narrow minded points that can go back and forth for days about he said she said stuff.

    Plus, MM was making up facts. The Afghanastan pipeline that he was referring to in the movie was a Clinton idea that would "provide peace" by sharing revenues between the warlords.

    While everyone is having a spaz attack on Bush on the oil issue, why hasn't one blog started about how China is trying to buy a US oil company which should be a wake up call to everyone on these blogs that oil is important to a whole heck of a lot of people, not just the Bush family.

    Why would you hold yourself accountable if 50% of the population agrees with what you are doing? That is what both parties think.

    Posted by dancall at 07/06/2005 @ 4:13pm

22. Do you think that Rove personally called Cooper telling him it was ok to testify? There are 3 reporters with one source or 3 reporters with 3 different sources? It would be interesting to see if one of the three never had a source and wrote the story anyway...wouldn;t be the first time for the NY Times...

    Posted by dancall at 07/06/2005 @ 5:01pm

23. Every time Clinton went after bin laden people like dancall and others on the right hollered "he's wagging the dog to take attention away from his persecution by the right wing"

    Posted by johnduelge at 07/06/2005 @ 5:39pm

24. What Rove said wasn't anti-American, it was the TRUTH!!! Now I am not saying every liberal was against the Afghanistan war, but David Corn, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Eric Alterman, Michael Moore, Molly Ivins, MOVEON.org and many other far leftists were.

    Now, FrankGrits, be honest, did you support the war in Afghanistan, b/c if you didn't then what Rove said was true. FrankGrits, how do you think the typical American feels about the Left whining over the religious expression rights of ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, but at the same time wanting to take down the Ten Commandments?? That says to most Americans, "Gee, the Left seems more concerned with the religious rights of Islamic terrorists, than they do their own fellow Christian Americans." You don't have to take my word for it, but that is how many Americans feel.

    There is a HUGE difference between Al Franken and Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Moore and Franken are PROPAGANDISTS, Limbaugh and Hannity are IDEOLOGUES. Propagandists lie and distort information about their opponents so they can get people to believe their views. Ideologues are truthful, BUT are not fair. They only tell the story from their point of view. I can list a 20 some lies by Moore; you might be able to find 1 lie by Limbaugh. No conservative talk radio host ever claims to be fair; on the contrary, Hannity has admitted several times that he isn't fair. And isn't it funny that the Left ALWAYS brings up Fox News as a right-wing channel, but fail to mention, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN and PBS. So by not listing those channels, are you implying they are left-wing?? As a conservative, I can admit Fox News leans to the right, but you as a liberal can't admit those shows lean to the left. (And they do!).

    According to the Army Times poll taken in November IIRC, soldiers serving in Iraq voted for Bush 3 to 1 over Kerry.

    The ACLU is trying to change the constitution, not following it!

    I don't look at dissent as anti-American; I look at giving comfort and aid to the enemy in a time of war as anti-American re: Durbin or Moore. Michael Moore makes a fictional movie about a sitting President and claims it as fact. That is treason my friend. But you shouldn't be surprised, Moore is anti-American. After 9/11 happened, he said America was culpable in the attacks. Now if that isn't blaming America, then I don't know what is!

    In the unfortunate circumstance of a mother whose life is at risk for giving birth, then yes, extenuating circumstances do warrant such measures as partial-birth abortion. But how come most democrats in congress voted AGAINST the ban on partial-birth abortion when it specifically states that it can only be used if the mother's life is at risk??

    Most Americans do understand the enemy, there are cold-blooded killers who CAN'T be reasoned with, and the only way to stop them is to kill them!!! Yes, the Democratic Party needs to move to the center. Democrats like Even Bayh and Ben Nelson are democrats that can win the Presidency without compromising their views. Why do you think Hillary is moving to the center?? B/c she knows she is too far to the left to be accepted by most mainstream Americans.

    Posted by UCS1923 at 07/06/2005 @ 5:44pm

25. John, nice try. Clinton had him 3 times, onces with navy seals within 200 yards of him but he wouldn;t pull the trigger. He only waited until he was out of camp before shooting the missles, thus getting no one.

    John, please read my whole paragraph. I just want both sides being told, not just one slant over the other.

    John, you should also read "Dereliction of Duty", written by a USAF officer who had a spotless record and also carried the "football" for clinton and resigned because he saw what Clinton was doing behind the scene. He recalls a golf event when Clinton would not answer to a 'red phone' call from two air force pilots who had bin ladden locked and load and could have taken him and his cronies out...Clinton wouldn;t take the call because he was WATCHING GOLF!

    I lean to whoever gets the job done. If it is a liberal gay man in office and he takes action against a guy like Bin Ladden...GOD BLESS HIM.

    Posted by dancall at 07/06/2005 @ 5:57pm

26. DanCall,

    Nothing "baby"-like about my "rant" at all. I simply pointed out that "revisionist history" is something Bush & Co. have indisputably partaken in. You know it, I know it; that makes it unanimous. Cheers.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/06/2005 @ 6:25pm

27. Kevin, True! Just wish more people would take offense to both sides doing it and not just one. I dislike it immensely when anyone does it. Honest mistakes are made, but today there doesn;t seem to be any honest leaders. It is all about power and being elite...

    Posted by dancall at 07/06/2005 @ 6:37pm

28. I criticized Kerry many times during his campaign, and also his wife for her dumb-butt comments (like denying she said a Republican-proposed policy was "unAmerican" during a speech when she clearly said just that). And gosh knows I've fumed and fumed over many Democrats having shown no backbone these last few years. I don't make any excuses for Democrats when they're in the wrong, and if Gore and Lieberman had flip-flopped on their Iraq II war justifications, I'd be pounding them on this, too. If I didn't heatedly disagree with some libertarian polices, I'd have voted for Michael Badnarik this last November, to be sure.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/06/2005 @ 6:46pm

29. UCS1923,

    Hannity doesn't lie but once, huh?

    --------------------------------------------------

    HANNITY: "Clearly, we're out of the recession that President Bush inherited." (4/2/04)

    Wrong. The non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research stated that the recession officially began in March, 2001 -- two months after Bush was sworn in.

    HANNITY: "The Hispanic community got to know him in Texas. They went almost overwhelming for him. He more than quadrupled the Hispanic vote that he got in that state." (9/16/03)

    Wrong. Bush doubled, not quadrupled, the Hispanic vote. (49% up from 24%)

    HANNITY: "Look, we've had these reports, very disturbing reports -- and I have actually spoken to people that have confirmed a lot of the reports -- about the trashing of the White House. Pornographic materials left in the printers. They cut the phone lines. Lewd and crude messages on phone machines. Stripping of anything that was not bolted down on Air Force One. $200,000 in furniture taken out." (1/26/01)

    Wrong. According to the General Services Administration: "The condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."

    HANNITY: "I never questioned anyone's patriotism." (9/18/03)

    HANNITY: (to attorney Stanley Cohen) "Is it you hate this president or that you hate America?" (4/30/03)

    HANNITY: "[After 9-11], liberal Democrats at first showed little interest in the investigation of the roots of this massive intelligence failure. Bush and his team made it clear that determining the causes of America's security failures and finding and remedying its weak points would be central to their mission."

    Wrong. Bush opposed the formation of this commission for over a year -- just like he did the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, an idea initiated by Democrat Joe Lieberman. He flip-flopped by supporting them afterward.

    Need I go on?

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/06/2005 @ 7:03pm

30. USC1923,

    When did Michael Moore become Adolph Hitler? What is the deal with the right tying any liberal, or progressive, making a liberal or progressive statement against the administration to MOORE EXTREMISM. I mean really guys! Who cares if Moore was selective? How can ANYONE argue that Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly or that nutcase Coulter isn't selective? Moore did to the external facts, what Bush did with intelligence on Iraq, cherry-pick. Not much difference, except Bush's cherry picking, costs lives. And just for the record, there is no...absolutely NO, logical way to say that an ideolougue is truthful by nature. And to separate an ideolouge from a propogandist is a sematical game, there is little difference.

    I don't think any of us on the left are arguing for any "religious expression rights" for terrorists, but I also don't remember any liberals making comments like "invade, kill them all or convert them to christianity." To me it seems like Sigmund Freud would have a field day with the right and their talking point espouting dittoheads

    I don't remember Rush railing against the ACLU when they went to bat for him to protect his medical records. The ACLU isnt trying to change the constitution, only nut cases that wear red(state)-tinted sunglasses and listen to that "Constitution in Exile" neocon flawed pseudo intellectual crowd would even suggest that the ACLU is trying to change the constitution.

    You also need to re-examine what treason is. By your definition the entire administration is treasonus. What does it mean to "give comfort to the enemy?" I know you've read it and heard it...but do you understand that is just code word for disagreeing with the president? Ie. Dissent? And i dont remember Moore saying the US was culpable, but I do remember Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson saying that...heroes of the right...true patriots...PRO-AMERICANS...well at least by your standards.

    Partial Birth abortion...well lets see...the law was worded so that it would open a huge whole into all abortions...it was a bill that was supposed to get the foot in the door. Dude, do a little reading and research, don't just copy O'Reilly.

    America is in the center, dufus...you aren't, your views are WAY WAY on the right...get a grib man...and learn something outside your obtuse world view.

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/06/2005 @ 7:34pm

31. Kevin, I am leaning more libertarian myself.

    Posted by dancall at 07/06/2005 @ 7:45pm

32. Liberal, Moore just lied about the facts in the movie and the liberals ate it up. He was up a documentary award. That is part of the problem, he lies, liberals back him and then wonder why the right starts going after you. Get some solid leadership and stay away from the Moore types. By defending him and using the comparison to Bush is like the right justifying evertything they do. It is a vicious circle and you are obviously caught in it.

    Moore's movie was a fictional interperation based on a ego maniac looking to make a name for himself. His movies are checked for facts and they are wrong most of the time. People in his movies say he lied to them. Check out michaelmoorehatesamerica.com

    Take the high road and go with a solid presentation based on fact rather than emotional opinion. that is how to win over middle america...or the ones with common sense.

    We are being hyjacked by both the rep and dem parties and is scary to see how many people blindly defend both. Again, I only defend Bush to make a point on how no one holds the dems accountable. If Clinton did the hard work when in office, Bin Ladden would have been destroyed and there would have been no 9/11, which in turn would have been no reason to go to war over WMDs. Clinton was too worried about getting BJs and not being proactive in other areas. He acquired a ecomony that was based on nothing he did, it was the technology boom...remember Y2K? Remember internet stocks and .coms'? The economy during those years could be argued that it was a false economy and that the Clinton administration allowed the corporate Fraud to really take off. But most liberal bantor neglects to mention this and not hold the Clinton admin accountable. I was at a presentation given by The honorable David Walker, Head General Accountability Office of the US Govt. Someone in the crowd, was trying to blame Bush for everything. He basically outlined that the .coms spiked creating unprescented economy not based on what Clinton did, but what the market did. The economy falling was not Bush, in fact the last year during Clinton term, the economy dropped drastically. The post the Kevin made, about when it was official is misleading. It takes time to become official...it took over 2 years to do so. When the market dried up after .com went under, our economy went sour. Then with the accounting firms going under due to corporate fraud and with the 9/11 attacks, things went further into the whole. What is not being told right now to the public is how fast our economy is growing right now. It is growing faster than any time in history, even with all the stuff going on. Unemployment is lower that our EU friends and we just need to get the stuff straight in the middle east and we will be fine. Liberty for all must be faught here in the states and liberty will prevail for all.

    Posted by dancall at 07/06/2005 @ 8:06pm

33. Liberal Ego,

    -- When did Michael Moore become Adolph Hitler? --

    Well, interestingly, Bush's grandfather, Prescott, had his assests seized under the Trading With the Enemy Act during World War II for doing Big Bidness with Nazis. And let's not forget Cheney's Halliburton subsidiaries doing business with terrorist-supporting nations like Libya, Iran and, yes, Iraq when sanctions were in place. Here's a real jewel from enemy-supporting Cheney when he was trying to get those sanctions lifted:

    "The problem is that the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments."

    -- What is the deal with the right tying any liberal, or progressive, making a liberal or progressive statement against the administration to MOORE EXTREMISM. --

    It's nonsensical, to be sure, but it's typical of this extremist wing of the GOP. It's a way of hoping to rope all dissenters into a simplistic, generalized group so their dissents will be dismissed as "Moore extremism". And you gotta hand it to the Bushies: people buy into this crap. How else to explain anyone with an IQ of above 30 actually spouting the asinine term "freedom fries" -- as if Bushies give a hoot about the freedom of the Iraqi people when they don't care about the poor and suffering people in their own country. And how about the "death tax". Of course, it's actually the "estate tax". Bush & Co. changed it to "death" so people would think it applies to everyone, where "estate" gives the impression that it affects only rich people -- which it in fact does. It affects only those with something over $3 million, though I think the minimum actually got kicked up to $6.5 million. So these gullible Bushies (the same ones, probably, who went scrambling for duct tape) actually think it acts Joe Schmoe when it doesn't. I'm a native Texan who's just moved to Missoula, Montana, and I was getting my hair cut here by this guy who was remarking to another guy that the "death tax" wasn't fair because it could apply to his barbershop. I waited, of course, AFTER he cut my hair to inform him that unless his business is literally sitting atop a frigging GOLD MINE, that, no, his business would not be affected.

    That's the thing: "Moore extremism", "freedom fries", "death tax", they're just meaningless concoctions from Bush & Co. swallowed up by a segment of the American public who don't like to think for themselves and rely on whatever their flip-flopping little boy king tells them. Tragic, this.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/06/2005 @ 8:09pm

34. DanCall,

    I, a moderate liberal, don't blindly defend Moore, I truthfully aver. I write film reviews for an Internet site, but you'll find no review of mine gushing with monumental praise for "F/9-11" because I never wrote one. I did praise his "The Big One" because it was atypically focused for a Moore film and made some very good points. And while Moore did in fact make misleading points in "F/9-11", not everything in it was untrue, which the Moore detractors usually make no mention of them (not that they would; and neither would a Democrat either, likely, if the film berated, say, Al Gore).

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/06/2005 @ 8:18pm

35. Kevin, Come on, don;t forget to mention moveon.org. Are these not the cronies that are friends with Marc Rich that was banned from the US for fraud, but Clinton pardons him? In case the liberals out there never heard of this: In 1983, Rich was indicted in federal court of evading more than $48 million in taxes. He was also charged with 51 counts of tax fraud and with running illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis.

    Gee, oil deals with Iran,,,shouldn;t you all be jumping up and down???

    What about FALN, you know the ones that killed innocent people in the streets of the US? What is it? Armed Forces of National Liberation, a Puerto Rican pro-independence group known by its Spanish initials, claimed responsibility or were blamed for 130 bombings, mostly in New York and Chicago, in the 1970s and early 1980s.

    Timing on this one was impecable...Hillary running in NY in the next couple of years, so he frees the Peurto Rican terrorists who killed innocent americans in the streets...Damn, Clinton was sure an ethical guy!

    Posted by dancall at 07/06/2005 @ 8:23pm

36. But lets get back to Rove. There is no way he did it. Not after what traspired today! I think Time will get out of it, but I think the NY Times is trying to cover something up or some how blame everything on Bush. BTW, NYT is loosing respect throughout th world. Dropped in ratings as a credible news source. Financial Times and Wall Street Journal are 1 and 2 respectfully.

    Posted by dancall at 07/06/2005 @ 8:30pm

37. -- Kevin, Come on, don;t forget to mention moveon.org. --

    I didn't forget. I simply didn't think of it because I do not visit that site.

    -- Are these not the cronies that are friends with Marc Rich that was banned from the US for fraud, but Clinton pardons him? --

    They are. But if you want to get into this kind of association thing, was not Enron one of Bush's top campaign contributors and Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay not one hell of a close friend of both Bushes?

    -- In case the liberals out there never heard of this: In 1983, Rich was indicted in federal court of evading more than $48 million in taxes. --

    A Democrat breaking a white-collar law isn't exactly something that's new. In fact, that Texas prosecutor who's going after DeLay has prosecuted more Democrat politicians than Republican ones.

    -- He was also charged with 51 counts of tax fraud --

    A scumbag, to be sure.

    -- and with running illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis. --

    I didn't know that. But I wonder if a whole lot of young Republicans, when Reagan died, knew about the treasonous Iran-contra scandal that was related to the hostage crisis. Probably not a whole heck of a lot.

    -- Gee, oil deals with Iran,,,shouldn;t you all be jumping up and down??? --

    It's despicable, but remember: Rich wasn't and is not sitting in the Vice President's chair; and Bush II hasn't been shy about placing more than a few Iran-contra guys (like Poindexter, who was charged with lying to Congress about his role in it) in crucial administration positions.

    -- What about FALN, you know the ones that killed innocent people in the streets of the US? What is it? Armed Forces of National Liberation, a Puerto Rican pro-independence group known by its Spanish initials, claimed responsibility or were blamed for 130 bombings, mostly in New York and Chicago, in the 1970s and early 1980s. --

    Interesting.

    -- Timing on this one was impecable...Hillary running in NY in the next couple of years, so he frees the Peurto Rican terrorists who killed innocent americans in the streets... --

    If you're expecting me to defend Hilary Clinton, you've got the wrong guy. No way in the world will I vote for her if she gets the '08 Dem. ticket.

    -- Damn, Clinton was sure an ethical guy! --

    I've never claimed such a thing, though there are surely hard-left Democrats who would. And they'd be as asinine in doing so as these hard-right gullibles are in saying Bush is an "honest man", when I can point out lie after lie by this flip-flopper.

    -- But lets get back to Rove. There is no way he did it. --

    "Did it" as in actually being the one who leaked the identity? Undoubtedly right. He's way too smart for that.

    -- but I think the NY Times is trying to cover something up or some how blame everything on Bush. --

    Well, being that the leak came from two senior officials in the Bush administration, then, well, yeah, it's kind of sensible that the blame for it is going to be cast onto the Bush administration. (By the way, some moron I debated with elsewhere tried to defend Bush & Co. by claiming it was just "some weenie" who leaked this info, when not just "some weenie" is privy to the identity of CIA operatives.)

    -- BTW, NYT is loosing respect throughout th world. Dropped in ratings as a credible news source. Financial Times and Wall Street Journal are 1 and 2 respectfully. --

    I'm actually quite a fan of the Christain Science Monitor. Damn good publicaztion.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/06/2005 @ 8:55pm

38. I know I'm coming in a little late but Vinhill brings up a point I've been trying to have answered.

    What is Fitzgerald's background...?``How did Ashcroft come to choose him...? I mean, other than the facts he's a hard-driven successful and a no-nonsense prosecutor posecutorial sleuth from Illinois, where was the linkage...?

    I've checked to learn the legal thread of how and why he was chosen and have come up empty.

    Posted by notime4lies at 07/06/2005 @ 9:38pm

39. moore's lies can be counted by the # of libel suits against him. i think it's somewhere in the 0.0 range. and, as a matter of fact, it was moore who first publicly used the line "fictional war". he's not just truthful, but quite insightful as well, as it turns out.

    Posted by dabar at 07/07/2005 @ 12:04am

40. Kevin, my questions were rhetorical...but thanks for clarifying them for those that may not have understood that, and pointing out the underlying facts.

    I disagree with both you and Dancall on Rove however. I do believe Rove is a very good political opperative, but I have absolutely no doubt that he was capable of making a blunder like blowing Plame's cover himself. I believe Rove, and many of his proponents see his as vastly more powerful that he really is. They DO see Rove and Bush, and Cheney, and Condi, and Donnie, et als, as being above the law. Rove is actually quite juvenile and cynical in his political operations. In fact one of the hardest aspects of politicing against Rove, or so I've heard, is the the disbelief that Rove's operations actually work. Liberal politicos slap their heads and say "Are people REALLY buying this bull?" And about half the nation is! So I do believe that it is incredibly plausible that Rove dialed a few press members and gave them a nibble on some poisonous information. And I think he was also cynical enough to think that it would have either destroyed Wilson (which it didnt) or blow over quickly (which it didnt). Rove is not a magician, or Harry Potter, he's a con man...and you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cant fool all the people all the time.

    Dancall's comment about Marc Rich is kinda silly. These Republicans seem to have the dimmest of lightbulbs...I am constantly confounded how they can continue to think, least of all remember College Republican talking points, with all of their contradictions and hyperbole. I would assume that Dancall believes Tom Delay should be given the benefit of the doubt surrounding his reported ethical imbroglio...innocent until proven guilty right? Well, here is a little tid bit about Marc Rich, HE NEVER WENT TO TRIAL! He's legally about as guilty as OJ. We all know Tom Delay is a scumbucket, Bushco is filled ethically challeged liars, Clinton is a wife betrayer and affair cover-uper, and Marc Rich is a shady businessman...oh yeah, and Newt Gingrich is a wife-who-is-dying-from-cancer-cheater-on-and-leave-her-for-another-woman kinda guy, OKAY AND Michael Moore selectively reports facts (notice the word FACTS), but none of them are guilty of anything according to the law! So its kinda silly to be hanoding out guilty verdicts, when you've got you're guy in the fryer...and you're demanding that he is innocent until proven guilty.

    About FALN: Dude, common! It was a clemency for people not involved in the 130 bombings. The 11 members of FALN were given sentences ranging from 35-90 years for being members of the group, not for the actual bombings...i mean, 90 years?!?! I mean really man! Give me a break. And the whole, "isn't it convienient" what a load of bull-hockey, out of the 8 million people in NYC how many do you think are Puerto Rican, and then how many of those Puerto Ricans either remember FALN and/or supported it? Get off it...

    Iran, you want to point the finger at some Democrat because of business with Iran...JUST BECAUSE HE IS A DEMOCRAT...are you pointing the finger at Rummy for helping Sadam aquire WMD to use against the Kurds? (I'm sure the irony of the situation in Iraq isnt lost on the Kurds like it is on the Republicans) You glorify a character like Olie North, but want to call Marc Rich unscrupulous. Haliburton! We have a former secretary of state that is wanted in so many countries for war crimes, that he can't leave the US...and you want to go after Clinton for issuing Clemency to individuals who's sentences weren't in accord with similar cases? Jeez how do you all keep such straight faces when you say this stuff?!

    I am surprised Hollywood doesn't have more Republicans. That may be the Republican party great anymosity toward Hollywood, Oscar caliber actors like "Teary Eyed Top Gun" Bush, and Rich "Man on Dog" Santorum just can't even get a screen call. I'd be upset too. How else could you one minute call liberals Stalinist/Lennist/Marxist Communists, and then feign outrage at being called a Nazi...acting classes! The secret is out!! Were dispatching Tim Robbins and Sean Penn ASAP!!!

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/07/2005 @ 01:08am

41. Devoid of principle Karl Rove being frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs?

    The unethical, and vindictive Rove has been involved with the Bush family for how many years now? Is it 25?

    I may be wrong, but I think you would have a better chance of seeing Osama bin Laden driving down Massachusetts Avenue in a pink Cadillac convertible than Rove being frog-marched out of White House in handcuffs!

    As I sit here writing I'm listening to the "Situation" with Tucker Carlson. The show's a joke! I'm trying to understand Carlson, who is saying that Valerie Plame wasn't covert? And so therefore a crime wasn't committed? Oy! Vey. Hello! Tucker! Stick a sock in it, would ya!

    David, when are you going to get your own show? Seriously!

    Posted by Munich at 07/07/2005 @ 01:48am

42. Dancall,

    Moore is about as much a leader for the liberal movement as Anne Coulter is sane. If you read my post you would see that I equate Moore's use of fact, with Bush's avoidance of fact. The interesting thing about selectivity is that even when one uses solid facts selectively, you're right...it is intentionally misleading. As for me being caught in some vicious cycle...if you mean my daily cycle of reading the news-get angry-get depressed-eat donut-read sports-get angry-get depressed-think about eating another donut but instead post on liberal magazine site and debunk flawed conservative talking head regurgitations...then YES i am in a VICIOUS cycle...is this when the intervention starts?!

    The only reason I am sorta defending Moore...AGAINST MY WILL MIND YOU...is because you make rediculous statements like:

    "Moore's movie was a fictional interperation based on a ego maniac looking to make a name for himself. His movies are checked for facts and they are wrong most of the time. People in his movies say he lied to them. Check out michaelmoorehatesamerica.com"

    I mean really bub! Its not a work of fiction, go to your library and search for the accompanying book (correct me if i am wrong, but he did write an accompanying book F911, right?) Nothing in his movie was not factually correct, but some of it was completely out of context...did Bush actually only stare at "My Pet Goat" for 2 minutes, not 11...really...you do a disservice to my intelligence! And as PROOF you offer to combat selective fact presentation that can easily be called propoganda with (drum roll) MORE PROPOGANDA...wait wait...was that site done by the Swift Boat Vets?! No...its just earily similar in its approach to truth...hmmm

    And then again you belittle my massive brain with another confounding statement:

    "Take the high road and go with a solid presentation based on fact rather than emotional opinion. that is how to win over middle america...or the ones with common sense."

    Take the high road? I didn't know I was taking the low road, and I also didn't realize that I was so emotionally attached to Michael Moore. Emotional opinion, that made me snort. You are telling me that liberals are loosing middle america, because we rely on aguments based on emotional opinion?! This is comming from, as Larry David so eloquently put it, the party of Fetus and Jesus. You guys are the pros at doing EVERYTHING by emotional opinion. Jeez man, you are really really lost. Solid fact like "death tax," "No Child Left Behind," the Zygot Rights movement, and of course the favorite scapegoat for all societies ills...GAY PEOPLE (somewhere, someone read that and gasped, maybe even had a heart attack or a little stroke).

    Dude, i'm going to let you in on a vastly known secret, one which again we can thank sigmund freud for, but here goes it; All people can be manipulated through their base emotions. There it is! Its something advertisers have known for generations, something Johnson used in his campaign commercials, something Bush used after 9-11, and something Fanta has done more recently (Don't you wanna...wanna Fanta...yes...I...do!) Maybe thats how the dark side indoctrinated you so well...there is always rehab.

    Ok...on to defending my Homeboy BJ Clinton (interesting those sorta are his initials). Regulated Capitalism 101: Clinton didn't cause the .com burst. His fiscal policies, coupled with a level headed monetary policy from the fed, pushed our economy to see the greatest level of growth our nation's history. I remember when Clinton was in office...oh how you republicans loathed to give him any credit for the economy, it was ALL greenspan of course Greenspan controlled the economy (all by himself...right?). And then when Bush came into office and decided to cut taxes to a tiny minority of tax payers AND raise spending during, while the fed was dropping rates...the burst and the recession was ALL Clinton. Common now, the recession was before 911, but Bush policies are what kept this crappy economy in the dump. This GRAND recovery you all like to tout, is of very mixed reviews. Are corporations making profits? Yes. Are jobs growing? Minimally, yes! Is unemployment dropping? Actually you can't tell, but most sources ACTUALLY point to no. Are real wages going up? No! Is purchasing power going up? No! Are real prices increasing? Yes! Is there significant CORE inflation to make government monitors pay VERY close attention to the economy? YES (in other word the inflation isnt JUST oil and food)

    You can't have your cake and eat it too, brotha! And FYI it takes two months for a recession to be official (if you count the 3 revisions of each months reports...it takes 5 months for a recession to be official) not 2 years. You guys still believe that it was Reagan's trickle down economics that made the 90s boom. When its your guy in office, its take no blame, but all the credit. When its our guy in office, its give no credit, but all the blame. You guys are so out of touch economically, that when Reagan was president, Reagan changed all the economic calculators to hide the problems in the economy. When Clinton came in office, they were all changed back. (I bet most of you talking point dittoheads don't know that little tidbit). So in other words, the recession of Reagan's was underreported and the growth overreported. I just don't think you really understand how duplicitous your leaders are.

    I am not a liberal because of some knee jerk emotional pavlovian response, I am a liberal because I am a student of knowledge. I cram all of the information together, and separate the propoganda, and spin to examine the facts. And when i do that on each issue, each concern, each aspect of this American life, 75% of the time the Republicans get separated with the spin and propoganda. In the pursuit of knowledge and truth, I can imagine anyone aligning with the right.

    Since you saw fit to give me political advice for my party of choice, I will return the favor. I've looked into my crystal ball and have seen the future...Much like the current backlash against liberalism, the conservative movement has built a backlash of its own, and the is going to begin effecting politics in the 06 and 08 races. That is not to say that democrats will regain Congress, or even the presidency, but within the next 2 or 3 presidential election cycles it will happen. The difference however is that conservatism as a political philosophy is doomed. That is not something I say as a liberal, or a democrat, that is something I say as an astute student of history and philosophy. Conservativism is self-destructive in nature. And any nation that is conservative in nature will come to a crossroads at which point it must either discard conservatism for progress, or the nation will ultimately fail. So my advice would be to eat drink and be marry, your reign of power is waning.

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/07/2005 @ 02:12am

43. Liberal, well stated, but like your conservative destruction theory, liberalism without accountablity is by far more destructive.

    If the Dems were so worried about jobs, then why did the massive undertaking of sending jobs overseas originate in the late 90's? It was a corporate trend that could have been stopped and should be stopped. So when you caluculate your findings about the economy, start adding some of those issues into the equation.

    I agree with most of what you said, and like I said on another post, I don't care if a liberal gay president took action against our enemies, at least he/she is taking the fight to them. And yes, we are at war. We are at war not only in the middle east, but with China. If you recall in the 80's and especially in the 90's, we created a monster, much like the eurpeans did with the US as a place for cheap labor and resources to boot. What distrubs me with China is that in the 90's, we sold our BEST military equipment to China...that means in 5 years when we are fighting China over Tawain, they will have the same stuff we have. When we sold weapons to another country back in the days of Reagan, we were did not sell them our latest and greatest. But since Clinton allowed the Chinese to buy the smallest yet most effective nuclear device known to man, how does that have an impact on our economy? In the last couple years we have been spotting CHINESE SUBS patrolling US water ways, then within the last two months, the Chinese want to buy one of our oil companies? Hilter lost the war because he didn;t listen to his generals...number one fault, he lost control of the oil fields. The allies were able to split the german forces and half and take control of the oil. Or don;t you remember the battles in Northern Africa and the middle east. Think hard and deep about that!

    It was in the mid 1990's that Bin Ladden declared war against the US. Number one reason Liberal? Get US Soldiers off Saudi Arabian Soil. Clinton had the opportunity to pull US Service off the Soild, but elected not to. I didn;t think he should, but I think he should have taken out Bin Ladden when he had the chance. The reason I dislike the Clinton's is due to how they treated people behind the scenes. you know, the real people. It is a much different look and when a friend that is a secret service agent tells me that they treat them like servants and use foul language at them, there is a big problem. These men and women, Liberal, are willing to jump in front of a bullet and die for them, and yet they do not respect them? How do you think they feel about every day people? If you are such a student of history, then why don;t these facts ever creep into the 9/11 conspiracies that Bush created 9/11?

    What drives me crazy is that when people like you don;t take into the consideration of what our "european allies" are doing. France has been a thorn in the US side ever since they were taken over by Germany in record time and then the US and Britian Liberated them. You know after that War, vietnam wanted to become a democracy and were actually holding parardes in the streets to kick their Sovereign power, France, out. Well, we turned our back on them in the early 50's we never responed to them and let France keep their LANDS. Well, who did they turn to, the Soviets. And who started feeling the heat? France. Who did France call for Help? US. When we arrived, who ran? France. Who got blamed for the War? The US. How many people were murdered after we left? Millions.

    The sad thing today in S Korea their Youth thinks the US should leave and we should have never been there. The older generation, as you well would think, is at total odds with them. That is the fight between conservatism and Liberalism that most Americans you dispise are thinking. The backlash of Conservatism will adjust to the needs of the people. Unlike 100 points on liberalism coming at the country with 100 different ideas with 100 different poeple leading the charge. That is what I am talking about presentation. Liberals by nature are not organized and will never be able to lead people who want to be led.

    Thomas Jefferson: --"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

    that is not the TJ that the liberals hyjacked, is it???

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 09:06am

44. Sad news today! One of the bombs was under the hotel where Netanhayu was going to be speaking at and the kick off the G8 Summit, which broke ranks yesterday by bringing in outsiders about the Africa plight. Then on top of it, they killed the Egyptian Ambassador to Iraq. Liberal, conservative, religious or not, these acts should strike home. We are fighting the Christian right in the Courts, when we ae being assaulted by the Musleum right on the battlefield. The problem with liberalism, there is no back bone to say hey, enough is enough. We are too worried about the rights of terrorists who want to kill us and our system. We have put such tight measure on RULES OF ENGAGEMENT which has crippled out elite forces around the world. Our so called policy makers are making these policies without having ever been in the battle field under hostile fire. You will see a big turn in British policy and you will see what their elite forces do to the terrorists. We are loosing this war in the papers and not letting our guys do the job they can do and get out. Sorry for the rant!

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 10:48am

45. Ok ok, working backwards...Liberals hijacking TJ, I don't know where you heard that one, but it was good for a laugh.

    South Korea: The "old gaurd" in South Korea is actually fairly liberal, and amazingly so are the youth. They all disagree on one issue though, the need for American influence in their culture. The Koreans (both generations) are trying to eventually reunited the North with the South, a la Berlin Wall. It will happen eventually. But the difference is the old gaurd (which remember is liberal) remembers a time when a US presence was needed at the boarder to keep NK from invading or skirmishing the boarder. The young Koreans don't understand that history and don't see the North as a serious threat anymore. They feel that the US presence increases the friction between the North and South, and keeps the South from being able to ernestly pursue reuniting the peninsula. BOTH groups however, are VERY progressive and very leftist; ie. Sunshine policy that the conservatives in the US mocked.

    There is no logical argument behind your statement:

    "Liberals by nature are not organized and will never be able to lead people who want to be led."

    Have liberals had a unity problem in the last 8 to 10 years? Yes. Much of that can be traced back to decayed party infrustructure and neglect starting during the Nixon admin. But, you are seeing the party comming back together and reorganizing. There is some resistance, because it means specific individuals must give up some of the power and clout they had, but party unity is cementing. One of the basic problems between American manifestations of liberalism and conservatism you are right about! Liberalism in America is a movement, a groundswell that moves from the many (grassroots) and their issues, to the top...a movement. American conservatism however, is a machine. It is a few individuals making policy choices and decisions and pushing them down through channels. In effect its not so much leading as pushing. Its being commonly refered to as grasstops, you have individuals like Rove, who decide a direction and a means to get there and disseminate through channels in business and religion down to the flock of citizens...a machine. So yes, conservatism in America is more efficient, but it is also much more artificial, and as such, regarless of how hard conservatives try and how they adapt, people eventually will buck the yoke that binds them.

    European Allies: I didnt even know we were addressing our allies, i thought this came from a thread about Karl Rove and a disagreement on politics and how the right and left are both successful and failures. But to address the points you raise. France is most definately our aly, because they disagree with us from time to time, the right sees fit to savage them. I mean, are you seriously suggesting that we should call french fries, freedom fries? Our nation would not even be founded if it had not been for the frogs. Yes the French financed our war, partially out of economic interests (the french wanted to open up trade with the colonies, and the English had been preventing the colonies from trading with any country other than England - simplified) but here's a jeapordy answer for you; there were more French troops fighting for the colonies in the American revolution, than colonial troops. And as a reminder, the only reason Cornwalis surrendered, still to his shame in England, was because the retreat was blocked by French marines and navy. Had Cornwalis retreated, reinforcements were on the way, and most likely Washington would have been decimated. So who is counting this we saved, they saved? How petty of us as Americans to keep tromping out the same old line "Those ingrates, we liberated them in WWII." I mean really! Who cares if they disagree with Bush...right now, 57% of Americans disagree with Bush, are we changing the name New York Cheescake to Kansas City Cheesecake, or Boston Baked Beans to Philadelphia Mississippi Baked Beans? Think about it...its a rediculous argument.

    Whats disturbing about your economic views is again your desire to take all the credit but none of the blame. The economic policies we have with China were not formed from 92-00, they were formed over the last 3 decades. Outsourcing wasnt something that began because or under Clinton, outsourcing began a lot longer back than that. A primary example was manufacturing jobs in the early 80s. Automobile plans and clothes factories were moving to Mexico and the Phillipenes in droves. American products suffered serious quality control issues because of that, and there was a backlash against foreign produced product. Remember the "buy American" TV campaigns?

    Military equipment in China...highly contested. China flies Russian planes, produces the highest quality AKs, uses scud and Russian missil technology, etc... China produces its own stuff my man, and if you have issues with our arms manufacturers doing business with China, talk to George H. W. Bush and his cronies, they are the ones that actually sell the goods, not the US government. I didn't know about Clinton allowing the Chinese to buy our nuclear subs, but maybe he did, i doubt that it really matters though. Subs would be the last worry about fighting a country with a million + standing army. Nice seguay to Hitler...I dont understand why Republicans ALWAYS BRING UP HITLER. I got a philosophy BA and MA, so i've heard plenty of Nazi senarios and comparisons, but its like yall are so worried about looking like Nazis that you talk about them all the time! The battles of Northern Africa were nowhere near as important as the Causcus battles on the eastern front. Africa would have been to hard to control a supply chain from, it was Baku that was most important. And yeah...when you are fighting an enemy that has you surrounded, your forces are fairly easily split. Hitler's mistake wasnt that he didnt listen to his Generals...Bush doesnt listen to his Generals...but it was that he double crossed Russia. The russians would have stayed out of the way had Hitler not attacked them. Hitler opened up the second front and two fronts posed to much for a centrally located power. (This is WAY WAY off of Rove leaking covert identities to the press...although a Hitler comparison is not as much a long shot...both are nuts, both are extreme right wing, one was facist, one borders on it...both are willing to manufacture events for their polical purposes...maybe Rove & Co isnt Hitler...but their ethics arent to far off - I bet that will piss off so many republicans that i just wrote that)

    I am actually against globalization, i think it will be detrimental to the US. Dems are torn on this issue, Repubs are all about lining some corporate pockets. And in the short run i do think corporate profits will be up because of cut labor and production costs by outsourcing, but eventually, Americans wont be able to purchase the goods because of a suffering domestic economy, and those same companies will relocate to wherever buyers are. Thats capitalism. The companies are screwing the cheap laborers AND the consumer at the same time...Americans just wont wake up until it hits them right in the teeth...Oh and then they'll wonder why they ever left their unions and ever listened to the US Chamber of Commerce, etc. Ironically I will bet you $1000 (its here in writing) that when the American voters realize that they are screwing themselves by electing pro-free trade, pro-globalization represenatives, the faux-revival will also implode and Tony Perkins, James Dobson et al will be facing some serious legal and tax issues. Give or take a 18 month window from election date!

    And finally on your first statement:

    "...but like your conservative destruction theory, liberalism without accountablity is by far more destructive."

    I'm not sure you are sure what liberalism and conservatism are as political world views. I would assume that you have bought into the burned over theory that liberalism is pushing our society closer toward moral anarchy. That is a fear based assesment. I've dubbed it the ostrich theory of life. The idea that a 1950s (although the current powers that be would probably prefer 1890s) social structure with a Donna Reed household is what will make America strong. But all this does is bury your head in the sand, so that you can't see the realities and presures on society. The idea that gays can be gay...but only in private...we wont talk about it. Men are head of the household, and abortion equates to a scarlet A sewn onto a woman's dress. Upon closer examination however, you might be able to see that not only is this a neglect of the truth, but it is also oppressive. A open and democratic society, based on fundemental freedoms, must be liberal in the long run. Otherwise it becomes something else (like a dictatorship), or will fall apart. Progress toward an egalitarian society is the journey for our society, as it has been since our framers penned our constitution. We've stumbled, and faltered, but what made us stronger is the fact that we have attempted to correct those wrongs, pick our nation up, and continue on our journey. The conservative movement serves as a great check to our nation. It reminds us of our journey! When we cycle into years like these we will eventually realize that we must progress, and the voters will react and change the make up of the government. Its night and day, without night, you'd never know when it was day. I could have used a good and evil analogy, but we both know that the hearts of either side are not motivated by evil. Its yin and yang, but in a the liberal/conservative balance, liberalism is heavier, larger, grander. Its the nature of time. Liberalism will always ALWAYS win out, just because of the nature of time. Change happens, nobody can stop that. Liberalism embraces it, conservatism is flees it. Think about it, thats why i say that conservatism is a flawed ideology. People like Grover Norquist think they are winning some huge culture war, or war of power, but the truth is its a fight that they can never win. Maybe during their lifetime they can attain to power, but it is a losing cause. The democratic party may not be around forever, nor the Republican party, but liberalism under any name, will ALWAYS triumph over conservatism.

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/07/2005 @ 12:03pm

46. The CIA and Rove...hmmm. Isn;t the CIA our international organization telling us what is going on in the world? We are constantly playing chess not only inside america with our policies but outide as well. Dude, I thought you could connect the dots.

    Liberalism does not always win. If you look at Irish History, is was the conservatism and determination of the Irish to keep fighting for their rights as a person, but yet their culture was extremly conservative. Now with your version of liberalism and the breakdown of the catholic religion and the influx of foreigners in Ireland, the culture is changing and now there are drug dealers on the street corners, land is being consumed and now are seeing inflation going through the roof. I was berated with my analogy of what happened to two great powers in the worlds history and the basis for some of our thought today. Athens and Rome were established by ultra conservative values with strict control. When they expanded and new liberal ideas came in, it broke down the society because some of the "progressives" made deals with other countries to attack and take over their lands. It is why the Chinese are so secretive and follow the idea that to cripple a country, get on the inside and gain all the knowledge they have and use it against them. Was is not the Soviets who destroyed all religion in their area and was it not the will of the US and internal pressures that broke their tight grip over their version of a liberal society? You will probably dismiss this as a non logical argument like you have so elequently done above, but like your disconnect between Rove, the CIA and our foreign allies, you may not be seeing the light.

    I would love to see the US troops leave S Korea and see how fast N Korea moves in. Why do you think Australia is building new missle defense system in the North near Darwin? Dude, you have all the academic responses by your elequent wording. It is apparent that you do not understand the human nature of man and will never be able to supress it by your liberal way of thinking that we should all just get along.

    We are in a serious culture clash right now because the "man" is being blamed for everything. It is quiet interesting to see a man like Bill Cosby stand up and speak out againt the liberal BS and actually say that people need to be ACCOUNTABLE. I beleive your version of Liberty for all, but our liberal ideals in this country has created a system that makes people dependent on the govt. This country was founded by people who wanted to come to succeed on their own merrit. We need to help others who are being discriminated against, however, we have created a soft society where our youth does not want to work the hard jobs. That is why the Mexicans are doing well here. when i was 18-24, a construction job was the best. yes it was hard work, but it paid well. Our youth doens;t want to get their hands dirty and work hard for thier money. the 80's and 90's created a get rich quick society. It can be blammed on both sides of the aisle. But to sit back and listen to people trying to run the country ojn both sides that havve soft hands and have never gotten dirt under their finger nails tweaks me.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 12:54pm

47. Look,

    My humble prediction...it ain't Rove. I know you guys have your fingers crossed, but I think you'll be disappointed.

    We'll know soon who the leak is, though. Basically, the libs went after Novak and it backfired. Now that poor NY Times reporter is fighting over the top bunk. The attacks in London have (rightly) removed her from the spotlight for now.

    I love Novak. He writes excellent conservative commentary from a Catholic perspective. Not everyone wants to hear that perspective, but for those who do, it's articulate and it's there. His post-2004 election essay, "What Did Jesus Do?" is required reading.

    There's plenty of heated, great commentary here, but zzzzzzzzzzzz. I can't make sense of all the facts while trying/pretending to do work. Maybe I should read the cartoons for a while...

    Posted by Beausoleil at 07/07/2005 @ 4:52pm

48. Ugh...where did the CIA come into all of this? I think you are really reaching now. I am really not all that into Irish politics...but I did say that in the long run, didnt I? I do believe the long run is longer than your and my life span. And just for the record, i would suggest that the IRA is a conservative organization.

    I didn't say that North Korea would or would not invade, i just pointed out the difference in opinion between South Koreas old gaurd and youth movement. Frankly I dont know if the North would invade or not, i doubt it, but i don't know...nor do I believe you to hold the key to that information.

    Ugh...the Roman empire was conservative, the Roman Republic was quasi-liberal. Same with the Greeks. Note, progress is necessity for liberalism, Roman and Greek empires were quiet restrictive. If you mean military progress then i guess they were militarily progressive, but as far as societal values go...your argument is about as useless as a football bat.

    My liberal way of thinking has other names too; analytical, critical, logical, calculated, factual, etc.

    Human nature is another whole discussion. I think that discussion would have much more to do with Benedict Rove. But food for thought; is human nature an excuse to act without thinking, or the cause of acting without thinking? And if it is the cause, are our actions therefor excused? Hmmmm

    This culture clash you speak of is most interesting. Its especially interesting that you refer to "the man." As if it Republicans who are taking the flack for everything. The irony is that Republicans have been able to motivate their base by claiming that some shadowy group of liberals CONTROL THE WORLD, and even when the Congress, Presidency and courts are controlled by conservatives, the conservative agenda is still in jeapordy from being destroyed by the shadowy liberal villains. Anyway...the man isnt blamed for anything. Bill Cosby didnt rail agains liberals, Bill Cosby railed against poor parenting, specifically in the African American community. Its extremely offensive that you associate liberalism with poor parenting, and two liberalism and african americans as being able to shirk accountability. Its always amazes me that conservatives can point their call the kettle black, and not see their hipocrasy

    You are wrong about the "own merit" founding of our nation. Our nation was founded on a fundemental society that is formed for the betterment of ALL AMERICANS. In lay persons terms; we are all in this together. Our nation is dependant on the government for the fundemental rights outlined in our constitution, AND the natural rights that are "inalienable." Those have been interpreted to even mean a basic standard of living. Its conveinient to mouth off about this every man for himself bologna, but thats not what were here for. We are here in the pursuit of happiness, and we promise to one another to form A MORE PERFECT UNION in which we and help provide life, liberty and happiness. Does that sound familiar? Its a society, not some solopistic anarchy. Republicans love the idea of a return to robber barron up by the bootstraps America, but like i said earlier that was one of our nations stumbles. We picked ourselves up, corrected the wrong, set in place protections so Americans would not be taken advantage of like that again, and defended the right to unionize to protect the common worker, and moved on. You Repubs are great at forgetting that your ideas fail, fail and fail again. Time has shown the flaws in various ideas, but you just repackage them and send them out to have their flaws discovered again.

    On the youth not wanting to work hard jobs, and society becoming soft, that has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives. The reason many of the contruction jobs and other manuel labor jobs go to imigrant day laborers is because of ILLEGAL union busting practices. Nobody wants to hire unionized help because...surprise...it costs more...skilled workers usually do! But who would it be that is anti-union, lowest cost, highest profit, screw everyone but the business owners? If you said liberal...you lose! The 80s was the cutthroat business era; savings and loan scandals, junk bonds, etc. The 90s was a stock boom, and internet boom, not as many people "got rich quick" in either era as people suggest. I was listening to NPR the other day, to become a billionaire you'd have to work for 1000 years, you are much more likely to be BORN a billionaire than make a billion dollar. But popular to contrary perception, and a lot of those you'd call soft handed, have to work very very hard for their wealth. I know I personally take exception to you statement.

    Your broad brush is filled with nothing but the recycled murmurs of unhappy consevative commentators. Again i suggest that you present something original, opposed to regurgitations of Ken Melman e-mails. Read on your own from a broad source of information, and most importantly don't be afraid to have your convictions challenged. If they stand on their own after attack, they are most likely solid in truth, but if they wilt from exposure they were never worthy of your belief!

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/07/2005 @ 5:19pm