Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditEarly this morning, Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's lawyer, told reporters that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald had sent him a letter stating that Rove would not be indicted in the CIA leak case. In a statement, Luskin declared, "We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."
Bush administration (and Rove) advocates will spin this news as vindication for the mastermind of George W. Bush's presidential campaigns. But there is no need for baseless speculation to conclude that Rove was involved in the leak and that the White House misled the public about his participation and broke a pledge to fire anyone who had leaked information about Valerie Wilson, the CIA officer married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration.
Here is what is known about Rove and the leak.
On July 9, 2003--three days after Joe Wilson published a New York Times op-ed piece disclosing that he had been sent to Niger by the CIA to check out the allegation that Iraq had been seeking to purchase uranium there and had reported back that such a transaction was highly unlikely--Rove confirmed to columnist Robert Novak that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. By this point in time, the White House--particularly Dick Cheney's office and Scooter Libby--had been gathering information on Wilson, his wife, and his trip for weeks. (In May and June, stories had appeared in the media quoting an unnamed ambassador who had gone to Niger and found nothing to substantiate the uranium-buying charge, which Bush had alleged in his 2003 State of the Union address.) And when Rove spoke to Novak--who had first heard about Valerie Wilson from another administration official--the White House was engaged in an effort to discredit Wilson. Cheney and others believed that if Wilson's mission to Niger could be depicted as a junket or boondoggle arranged by Wilson's wife, Wilson and his findings would be undermined. Spending a week in one of the poorest countries in the world for no pay would hardly qualify as a junket, but the White House was trying to use whatever they could.
Two days after Rove spoke to Novak and gave the columnist the confirmation he needed to proceed with a piece that would out Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA officer working on weapons of mass destruction, Rove spoke to Matt Cooper of Time. According to an email Cooper wrote immediately after this conversation, Rove told him that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had sent Wilson to Niger. This conversation occurred three days before the Novak article appeared.
So Rove spoke to two reporters about Valerie Wilson. Her employment status at the CIA was classified. Rove was not merely gossiping, he was disseminating secret information, whether he realized it or not.
After the leak appeared in Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Scott McClellan, who had just taken over as White House press secretary, said of the leak, "That is not the way this President or this White House operates."
He was wrong. It was precisely how the White House had operated. Scooter Libby--according to Fitzgerald's legal filings, Cooper's account, and the account of New York Times reporter Judy Miller--had also discussed Valerie Wilson's CIA connection with Cooper and Miller before the Novak column was published.
After the news broke in late September 2003 that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of the leak, McClellan declared that he had spoken to Rove and that "he was not involved" in the leak. McClellan also asserted that the vice president's office had not leaked the information about Valerie Wilson. He noted, "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." Bush affirmed that Rove was uninvolved and said, "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."
Rove--with or without the knowledge of the president and other White House aides--kept his leading role in the leak a secret for almost two years. In the summer of 2005, Newsweek revealed the Cooper email. And Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby months later disclosed that Rove had told Libby that he had spoken to Novak about Joe Wilson's wife.
The White House responded to these revelations by stonewalling, claiming that it could not answer any questions about Rove and the leak while a criminal investigation was underway. And it maintained that it could not even explain its previous--and false--statements about Rove and Libby.
McClellan's promise--made on behalf of the president--that anyone involved in the leak would be booted from the administration--was not honored. Nor was Bush's statement that action would be taken against anyone who leaked classified information. The evidence was clear. Rove had conveyed classified information about Valerie Wilson to two reporters as part of a White House effort to undercut Joe Wilson.
Fitzgerald had a high burden of proof in the Rove case. To win a prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act--which makes it a felony to disclose identifying information about a covert officer--Fitzgerald would have had to prove that Rove definitely knew that Valerie Wilson was not just a CIA employee but an undercover CIA employee. If Rove could raise doubt about his state of knowledge on that point, he would be able to mount an effective defense. Fitzgerald had kept Rove in the crosshairs for so long because he suspected that Rove had lied to FBI agents and his grand jury when Rove said at first that he had not spoken with Cooper about Valerie Wilson. It was only after a Rove email emerged--under somewhat puzzling circumstances--that noted that he had talked to Cooper that Rove acknowledged that he had a conversation with Cooper (though he still said he did not recall it).
Fitzgerald spent over a year-and-a-half trying to determine if he could prosecute Rove for perjury or obstruction of justice, as Rove's lawyer tried mightily to explain the delay in producing that one email. In the end, Fitzgerald concluded his case was not strong enough. Given his pursuit of Libby and the time he kept Rove hanging, it's reasonable to assume that Fitzgerald rendered a good-faith judgment based on the law and the facts he had in hand.
Which brings us back to the Democrats' early mistake. From the start, they called for a special counsel--as if that would get to the bottom of the controversy. But Fitzgerald's mission was to investigate possible crimes and then mount prosecutions if he had the evidence to do so. His job was not to be a fact-finder for the public. He is not compelled to release any report detailing what he discovered about the leak and the White House role. Independent counsels in the past were required to write public reports. But the law establishing independent counsels expired years ago, with the consent of Democrats angry at Kenneth Starr. A special counsel has no obligation to report on what he or she discovered. Congress was the body that should have investigated the leak--not as a criminal matter but as an issue of White House conduct--and it did not. Senior congressional Democrats did not push that point when they had the chance.
That means now that the whole story of the leak has yet to be disclosed. And it may never be--in an official sense. (Stay tuned for a book I am writing that will be out in the fall.) But several essentials are well-established: Rove leaked classified information that may have harmed national security; the White House said he hadn't and that leakers would be fired; Rove remains at the president's side today.
Not all wrongdoing--not all lying--in Washington is illegal. Rove escaped prosecution. But the episode has revealed the way the Bush White House really operates.
Share this article
David Corn
Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.
In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.
Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.
Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Sure, Dubya did "the appropriate thing" to his buddy that served his interests. Nothing, nothing at all...because the leak its purpose and the one-party joke that DC has become doesn't give a rat's ass.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/13/2006 @ 12:20pm
Hi Fuk-wad....I see you're off your meds again. Pathetic sot.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/13/2006 @ 12:21pm
ooops...should read "served its purpose" in the 12:20
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/13/2006 @ 12:22pm
"Fitzgerald had a high burden of proof in the Rove case."
Mr Corn is having one of the WORST days of his life. He's spent over a year working on this story and almost this alone. His ...well, perhaps "obsession" is too strong"...say, interest in Karl Rove and his "inevitable prosecution" is well-known.
He's taken an interesting tack here though...he's exonerating Fitzgerald with a "well, it was just TOO tough a case to prove" (dismissing his own earlier articles about how this was a "slam-dunk" of a case....was David Corn wrong...or Fitzgerald stupid?)
And now he blames Democrats for pushing for an independent counsel, "instead of Congressional hearings"....well, to defend them, they had no way of forcing that, did they? Remember "Phase-II" of the 9/11 investigation? (lib bloggers do)
Actually, this comes as worst news to the "pro-impeachment" crowd...seriously. If Fitzgerald couldn't get Rove in a "slam-dunk"...how do Democrats IF they decide to go after Bush (IF they win Congress) get him impeached. Especially if you believe that "Rove is Bush's Brain"...if he got himself out of trouble, why not Bush?
Posted by Mask at 06/13/2006 @ 12:30pm
BushCo epitaph: "We Were Never Actually Convicted." That, my friends, is what they meant by restoring honor and dignity to the White House. What a flock of vultures. And the self-obsessed moral slobs who back them are just as bad.
Posted by MyParadigm at 06/13/2006 @ 12:42pm
Crybabies like Fuklibz are certainly adept at typing while wearing a straightjacket and given a 30 second furlough from their tiny rubber rooms.
It would be completely laughable, if they weren't so pathetic...
Posted by Goadacon at 06/13/2006 @ 12:48pm
David, ....
Nice Try
Ct
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/13/2006 @ 12:57pm
Don't cry little Fuck-head. Dubya still loves you...just pick up a gun and head for Iraq and it'll all be better soon!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/13/2006 @ 1:00pm
This case was nothing more than a baseless revenge fantasy.
Now, hearing Dean whine about Rove's "sin" is enough to make a guy puke on his monitor.
I realize that some people love to play a game called "scandal politics", but we're at war, and we can't afford to be distracted by partisan hate mongering.
Posted by Beausoleil at 06/13/2006 @ 1:00pm
"we can't afford to be distracted by partisan hate mongering."
us neither, you can help by refraining from it.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 1:01pm
The problem is that the press has allowed the Bush lovers to frame the debate and set the bar here - criminal prosecution (and conviction), "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." Fact is, indictment or not, Rove was "involved" - deeply. The White House lied about this. Rove has no business lecturing on national security, and has no business keeping his classified clearance.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/13/2006 @ 1:07pm
Rove's conduct has been exposed for all to see. that a prosecutor has decided not to prosecute changes nothing. Rove leaked, Libby leaked, Cheney leaked and Bush leaked. Wilson has had the last word. Bush's lies have been exposed. when you state something, while ignoring all evidence to the contrary, thatsa lie.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 1:08pm
"partisan hate mongering"
Would that include being involved in discussing classified information (concerning a person engaged in counterintelligence on Iran) with multiple reporters to attack a whistleblower airing a dissenting viewpoint? Just wondering where you draw the line.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/13/2006 @ 1:09pm
HMAN23,
There's no crime there. If there was, Rove would have been indicted. It's pointless to rehash the arguments ad nauseum -- we've been doing it on Corn's comments board for months.
Sadly, this whole ordeal was nothing more than a distraction.
Are y'all upset that someone in Al Qaeda leaked Zarqawi's secret location? Awwww, just kiddin'.
Posted by Beausoleil at 06/13/2006 @ 1:16pm
HEY CORNBALL,
CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH SO YOU GOT TO USE A STALINIST TACTIC BY SUPPRESSING FREE SPEECH AND PULLING MY POST???WHAT POOR PATHETIC LIBZ YOU ARE....IT CHANGES NOTHING AND YOUR LITTLE CRUSADE AGAINST ROVE AND BUSH ONCE AGAIN FAILED MISERABLY!!!!!!!BETTER NOT QUIT YOUR DAY JOB AT FOXNEWS FOOL!!!!
THE LIBERAL CRACKUP IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD
Posted by FukLibz at 06/13/2006 @ 1:18pm
Once again, reality messes things up for the libs. Rove WAS going to be indicted, according to the libs and the media but then reality put a stop to that fantasy. Sort of like when Dems were going to take over Duke's seat in Cali but then reality set in and that never happened. Cali was going to get socialized pre-school but reality screwed that also. And so on and so on...
Posted by woodyee at 06/13/2006 @ 1:18pm
"We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."
Won't happen in the land of the bigoted liberal hatemongers unless the perverbial lake of fire final destination freezes over!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/13/2006
Just the way conservative dickfors did with Whitewater, Vince Foster, Waco, the Balkans, Clinton's BJ ...
Figured I'd better bring up Clinton, so that we can have a blog, dammit.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/13/2006 @ 1:18pm
HEY CORNBALL,
CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH SO YOU GOT TO USE A STALINIST TACTIC BY SUPPRESSING FREE SPEECH AND PULLING MY POST???WHAT POOR PATHETIC LIBZ YOU ARE....IT CHANGES NOTHING AND YOUR LITTLE CRUSADE AGAINST ROVE AND BUSH ONCE AGAIN FAILED MISERABLY!!!!!!!BETTER NOT QUIT YOUR DAY JOB AT FOXNEWS FOOL!!!!
THE LIBERAL CRACKUP IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD
Posted by FUKLIBZ 06/13/2006 @ 1:18pm
Wow, you really have gone overboard, Annie C - don't know that I've ever heard of a post being pulled. You're Number 1, chica.
Plus, what was up with the eye patch a few years back ? I have posted this question a half dozen times and yet you will not answer.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/13/2006 @ 1:21pm
I just heard that Schumer's calling for Fitzgerald to release a report about what was said in the testomony and how he arrived at his decision. Reality - He can't release grand jury testomony. That's against the law. I thought Chuckie was a lawyer...
Posted by woodyee at 06/13/2006 @ 1:22pm
DAVID
"But there is no need for baseless speculation to conclude that Rove was involved in the leak and that the White House"
If the evidence is SO conclusive, then why isnt he indicted???????????????????????????????????????????
After, what?? TWO YEARS of investigating?
Face FACTS, he didnt do it, you lost.
Posted by CPT at 06/13/2006 @ 1:23pm
wow, ann, they pulled your post? i can't believe they did that. your posts are always so jam packed with relevant information! the research must take you hours. by the way, i saw a clip of your interview with matt the other day. you are really looking rough! is it hiv? or is the bilious hatred eating you from the inside out?
Posted by loveloki at 06/13/2006 @ 1:24pm
There's no crime there. If there was, Rove would have been indicted.
Posted by BEAUSOLEIL 06/13/2006 @ 1:16pm
1) See above regarding Whitewater, Vince Foster, Clinton's BJ, etc.
2) All that this means is that Rove has a better lawyer. Kinda like Bush in Fla a few years back.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/13/2006 @ 1:24pm
Looking on the bright side actual verifiable lawbreaker Patrick Kennedy has pleaded guilty to DUI! Now maybe mothers, children, and loved ones in the path of his vehicles will have resonable assurance they won't be killed!!!!!!1
Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/13/2006 @ 1:24pm
Sorta like Dubyak being driven around in a limo all the time. He did have that DUI in Kennebunkport, afterall. Oh, but that was before he met his 'favorite philosopher,' and we don't talk about that, do we?
Posted by skeletonman at 06/13/2006 @ 1:26pm
Sorry, guys, shouldn't have mentioned the magazine. Still, the Grand Canyon SnakeShit part was a nice touch, eh :)
CT
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/13/2006 @ 1:31pm
Beausoleil's and CPT's posts confirm my earlier point (at 1:07). Exs. A and B.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/13/2006 @ 1:34pm
JOHANNE
"that a prosecutor has decided not to prosecute changes nothing. Rove leaked, Libby leaked, Cheney leaked and Bush leaked. Wilson has had the last word. Bush's lies have been exposed. when you state something, while ignoring all evidence to the contrary, thatsa lie."
It means he didnt leak, that what it means, and thats what it changes.
To ignore that, after TWO years of investigating is to be hopelessly partisan.
Face it, you lost, tough week for libs
Posted by CPT at 06/13/2006 @ 1:36pm
Now that a precedent of exposing CIA agents has been set, perhaps we can have more of it. Just in time, too, before the next invasion of Iran. Remember Iran? The CIA does; it overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran way back in 1953. (See, for example Tariq Ali's article in The Nation [thenation.com].)
Posted by peacemeow at 06/13/2006 @ 1:36pm
HMAN23
I know man, that little thing called due process, its a bitch isnt it?
Posted by CPT at 06/13/2006 @ 1:37pm
PEACEMEOW
You keep going on that, will catch up
Posted by CPT at 06/13/2006 @ 1:38pm
It means he didnt leak, that what it means,
it means nothing of the kind. it means he won't be indicted.
OJ was acquitted in the criminal case, does that mean he did not murder two people? no it doesn't.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 1:41pm
POOR FUCKING TRAITOROUS LIBZ
BOO-FUCKING-HOO
Posted by FukLibz at 06/13/2006 @ 1:43pm
As Mr Corn says "Fitzgerald had a high burden of proof in the Rove case."
But (as we're being told by the bloggers) Rove is "blatently guilty" of a crime...
but it takes a "high burden of proof" to prove it?!?!??!
I'm no lawyer, am I missing something???
Posted by Mask at 06/13/2006 @ 1:48pm
LOSERS LOSERS LOSERS
PATHETIC LOSERS
BOO-HOO-HOO-HOO
LAUGH AT THE OUT OF POWER CRYBABIES
Posted by FukLibz at 06/13/2006 @ 2:07pm
CPT - It means that he is not going to be charged with a crime. I guess that if all you demand from people running our government is that they do not get charged with anyting criminal, you are satisfied.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/13/2006 @ 2:15pm
Due process, its a bitch!
(Especially after, not one but TWO years of investigating.)
JOHANNE
Where was the blood on Rove, and at LEAST OJ WAS INDICTED and stood trial on several charges.
Rove wasnt, on anything.
Posted by CPT at 06/13/2006 @ 2:15pm
HMAN23
In the highly volatile world of partisan American style politics;
YES, not getting INDICTED is the standerd for those running our government. In our world anyone can get accused of anything, proving those accusations, thats quite another.
Posted by CPT at 06/13/2006 @ 2:19pm
Mask - if you would bother to actually read what people are saying, you will not find many (in fact, I could not find one) that argue Rove is guilty of a crime. Which bloggers are saying he is "blatently guilty" of committing a crime? I looked for the terms you quoted (assuming they came from a person) - could not find them.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/13/2006 @ 2:20pm
Nitwit FUKLIBS....begone foul-mouth troll. Away to the ignore zone.
Presto
..and just like that the hateful troll disappears...
twit
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/13/2006 @ 2:21pm
BOY WILL I LOSE SLEEP OVER A TRAITOR IGNORING ME
BOO-FUCKING HOO
Posted by FukLibz at 06/13/2006 @ 2:22pm
HMAN23
I know man, that little thing called due process, its a bitch isnt it?
Posted by CPT 06/13/2006 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person
Tell that to the people at Gitmo.
Posted by bjkron at 06/13/2006 @ 2:22pm
So CPT. Let me get this straight. You have NO problem with people in the White House discussing classified information that they cherry-pick with reporters. And you have NO qualms with the fact that the classified information conerned someone who was working on WMD proliferation issues concerning Iran. And you take NO issue with people incorrectly claiming to investigators and the grand jury (even if not amounting to a perjury charge; except of course in Libby's case) that they did not reveal the information to reporters. Does that about sum up the conduct you demand?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/13/2006 @ 2:26pm
And CPT, given that Libby was the first WH official to be indicted in about 100 or so years, I take it you have no issues with anyone that has ever worked in the WH during that time - since, of course they managed to not get indicted.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/13/2006 @ 2:28pm
" But there is no need for baseless speculation to conclude that.."
sounds like..." you will have a quick and fair trial, followed by a quick and fair firing squad. AS we already have the facts and all the evidence we need." I wouldn't want the author on ANY jury.
No need for trials as you guys have the real facts and you know better than the Special prosecutors...
There is and was no crime....shame on you law and order freaks..when it doesn't go "your" way. Predictable spin.
Posted by john maasch at 06/13/2006 @ 2:29pm
Fukwad.....my daughter is over there fighting in your hero's folly.
Having trouble sleeping? Try a handful of valium and a glass of whisky - or better yet, try a 38 snubnose....just suck on it once and you'll sleep peaceful forever, and ever.
traitor indeed...ignorant moron
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/13/2006 @ 2:29pm
All the same people who lectured for decades about the dangers of moral relativism and how character and principles are what really matter, now are gloating because their man is not going to jail.
If you want to be lawyerly about it, in spite of the fact that, yes, it's "blatantly obvious" that Rove was instrumental in naming a CIA operative, it's questionable that a crime was committed. David Corn, best reporter I know, has said so many times.
But it's so obviously and completely WRONG, according to the rules that the faux moralists in the White House got elected on.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
Posted by MyParadigm at 06/13/2006 @ 2:30pm
Libz, you are the one bright spot in my dreary, insignificant existence. You bring compassion and civility to a brutish gathering of cavepeople capable of little more than painting on the wall with their own political excrement. Our pathetic, desperate denial completely washes away under your patient illumination, and our total impotence is exposed, albeit gently, by your warm and graceful humor. Some here may not yet be aware of your contribution to our humanity, but for my part,
I think I love you.
Posted by drhammer at 06/13/2006 @ 2:31pm
FUCK OFF LEFT OF REALITY
Posted by FukLibz at 06/13/2006 @ 2:36pm
I LOVE YOU TOO DR
Posted by FukLibz at 06/13/2006 @ 2:37pm
In just two hours, virtually every supporter who graces us with his presence on a semi-regular basis has had a chance to offer us his penny's worth. Waiting for something actually worth two-cents to respond to.
Let's let this go and allow Rove to get back to doing the people's work. I haven't heard really good dirt on liberals in a while and I'm rather bored.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/13/2006 @ 2:38pm
Oops. every supporter of Bush, to be precise.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/13/2006 @ 2:38pm
Hman,
I believe I have won some beer back...with more to come? :)
Posted by john maasch at 06/13/2006 @ 2:38pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/13/2006 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person
Yeah, gotta go with JOHN MAASCH on this.....this is from David Corn-
"But there is no need for baseless speculation to conclude that Rove was involved in the leak..."
so if he was "involved in a leak"...and it's easily "concludible"...pretty much the same as saying Rove is "blatently guilty" of a crime, no?
Posted by Mask at 06/13/2006 @ 2:42pm
You know things are going piss poor at the White House when their best news is that someone didn't get indicted. What's next, champagne and cigars when Libby only gets 3-5 years? The world is full of white collar scum that avoid indictments due to high powered lawyers and friends in powerful place.
What's really amazing is that the holier-than-thou uber-patriots can cheer that someone who had at the ver least a peripheral role in the outing of a CIA agent avoided prosecution. And your eyes are so blinded by your fear of anybody who isn't a radical Republican android that you're willing to put aside the very principles you supposedly hold near and dear to your hearts - law and order, values, (excuse me while I puke from the fumes of your rancid hypocrisy).
Let's get the timeline straight: Nixon - witch hunt; Clinton - holding scumbags accountable for every possible foible; Bush - witch hunt. Is there a pattern here?
I don't know what's worse - that people are convinced that BushCo actually gives a crap aboout anything other than consolidation of their own power, or that people are willing to look over that because of their fear.
Posted by Turk33 at 06/13/2006 @ 2:45pm
CPT
It means he didnt leak, that what it means, and thats what it changes.
To ignore that, after TWO years of investigating is to be hopelessly partisan.
Face it, you lost, tough week for libs
No, what it means is that Fitzgerald can't prove that he was aware of Plame's covert status when he leaked.
Posted by brunowe at 06/13/2006 @ 2:47pm
Posted by FUKLIBZ 06/13/2006 @ 2:36pm
bite me trailer twit
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/13/2006 @ 2:50pm
Poor Scooter Libby. Congratulations to Karl Rove. I wonder if I'll get six chances at testimony before the grand jury to get my story straight.
Posted by nathanhale at 06/13/2006 @ 2:51pm
Look folks, we need to be understanding that the ole DC has really had a very bad week. First the moonbats lose in CA-50, then we get the biggest terrorist in Iraq, then Bush suprises everyone by turning up in Bagdad and now this. Let all pour him a drink and pat him on the back and tell him to suck it up and move on. Oh wait....HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by vrwc at 06/13/2006 @ 2:51pm
I SUBMIT IT IS NOW TIME TO CRUSH THE TRAITOROUS LIBERALS LIKE THE GRAPES THAT THEY ARE...WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ...THE ECONOMY IS AT HISTORIC HIGHS AND THE LIBZ ARE LOSING ON EVERY FRONT THEY DARE VENTURE ON (CALIF-50 ANYONE??).....JUST LIKE THE WONDERFUL TROOPS IN IRAQ GOING AFTER ALL THE TERRORISTS IN IRAQ AFTER ZARQUWIS DEATH MOPPING UP THE MONSTERS AND ENEMIES...WE NEDED TO MOP UP THE ENEMIES OF THIS COUNTRY (LIBERALS) AND FINISH THEM OFF ONCE AND FOR ALL...THEY ARE A STAIN ON OUR COUNTRY AND RESEMBLE NOTHING LIKE THE ONCE GREAT PARTY THAT THEY USED TO BE...THEY ARE A DISGRACE TO OUR COUNTRY AND NEED TO BE EXPOSED FOR WHAT THEY TRULY ARE....TRAITOROUS ANTI-AMERICAN ASSWIPE FUCKUP LOSERS ALL OF YOU!!!!
THE LIBERAL CRACKUP IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD
Posted by fukulibz at 06/13/2006 @ 2:53pm
As for Scooter Libby....
Jan 2007- trial.....March-April 2007- trial ends...conviction?...sentenced in April 2007, goes to Danbury Minimum Security.
His sentence?...anything more than 19 months is un-important. Why?
Because 19 months after April 2007 is December 2008..and the Christmas Pardon season for out-going Presidents.
Posted by Mask at 06/13/2006 @ 2:57pm
Posted by FUKULIBZ 06/13/2006 @ 2:53pm
You are one unhappy little bundle of raw nerve endings, aren't you?
Do yourself a favor, Annie, and seek help. I personally have seen ECT (electro-convulsive therapy) work miracles in a very short amount of time.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/13/2006 @ 3:05pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/13/2006 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person
There's an interesting thought, RIO.....like John Dean, Scooter Libby can have a conversion to liberalism, and come out (in 20 years or so) for the impeachment of a Republican President...
and David Corn and "The Nation" will hail him as a "honest Republican, who knows something about scandals!"
Posted by Mask at 06/13/2006 @ 3:53pm
"then we get the biggest terrorist in Iraq," hahahahahah
what rubbish, and Bush flies to Iraq, whattan accomplishment, no shortage of fucking senators have visited Iraq, the green zone anyway.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 3:59pm
"You know things are going piss poor at the White House when their best news is that someone didn't get indicted."
that's wonderful Turk, your lucid commentary has been sorely missed around here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 4:01pm
hammer, you give them a good pounding.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 4:04pm
in 20 years or so)
Mask it is fitting you should turn your gaze to 20 years hence.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 4:12pm
Rio, your grasp of history is tenuous at best. neither Nixon nor Agnew were ever indicted. I'm less sure about the others, but then I didn't post this drivel.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 4:20pm
Indictable? No. Tawdry? Yes. And the latter is what the electorate will most likely remember. Despite what our GOP friends here on the boards may think, today's news is not a victory for this White House, it is a crisis averted.
Posted by breasonable at 06/13/2006 @ 4:24pm
That story about Halliburton acquiring the asbestos liabilities of Dresser Industries raises an interesting point...
Cheney KNEW that Dresser had the most massive liability issue on planet earth (he had to have known) yet decided to pay good money to bring Dresser's problems under Halliburton's tent.
This raises the question...who were the largest shareholders of Dresser - in need of a lifeboat to save their own personal bacon? Anyone named Bush? Anyone named Carlyle?
The deal went like this:
Cheney agrees for Halliburton to take on the Dresser asbestos liability.
It is determined that Bush and Cheney will be (s)elected, and that the PNAC plan will be implemented - using 9/11 as the essential pretext.
Ken Lay plays his role using his Enron smoke and mirrors tactics to create a faux energy crisis in California, causing the public to demand an energy-savvy administration be elected.
With the asbestos liability and other matters hanging in the balance, the election of 2000 simply had to be rigged in order for the plan to go in to effect.
Following the appointment of Bush and Cheney, the secret energy planning meeting established which oil companies would reap the rewards of the pending invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.
The timing and the pretext were predetermined, and 9/11 was greenlighted for 9/11/2001. Cheney outsourced the implementation to Mossad, and ran the show from his bunker on D Day under the cover of preplanned drills simulating the exact attack that was proscribed, with NORAD as coconspirator. At least 50 administration officials and countless foreign agents were in on it.
Once the entire charade was concluded, the Administration generally, and Cheney specifically, had every reason in the world to blame Iraq.
The Afghanistan mission could not provide Halliburton with enough revenue to offset the massive asbestos liability claim. Iraq and Iran are essential wars in order to provide cover for the infusion of the billion of TAX DOLLARS necessary to both profit Halliburton for its actual work AND cover the massive asbestos liability claims.
Now you know why Halliburton was awarded the contracts without the need to bid for them. This was all prearranged.
NOTE: Private enterprise pushed its legal/financial obligations onto tax payers using war as the excuse.
The asbestos liability claims of Dresser Industries were ultimately paid by you and me, and our troops in the field, all to ensure that the investors in Dresser didn't take the multibillion dollar loss.
Just one piece of a very large chessboard.
Hang them for TREASON.
Posted by plunger at 06/13/2006 @ 4:28pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/13/2006 @ 4:12pm | ignore this person
Why not?...Dean "redeemed" himself when he ratted out Nixon for a lighter sentence and then did mea culpas throughout the 70s and 80s, to the point where now he is a respected analyst of corrupt Republicans.
David Brock?...vehement con, goes lib and creates "Media Matters" and all is forgiven. Arianna Huffington?
Heck, Libby might not need "20 years", but 5-7. Even if pardoned by Bush. Go on a few talk shows, interviews with David Corn, mea culpa "tell-all" and NPR interview with Diane Rehm where he says "Rove and Cheney WERE in on it, though it was never proven" and "I'm sorry for what I did to the Wilson-Plames"...and all's forgiven.
Shoot, give me a good PR firm and some time...I can get Katrina vanden Heuval hugging Ann Coulter at a "Democracy Now" rally in Manhatten.
Posted by Mask at 06/13/2006 @ 4:36pm
Posted by PLUNGER 06/13/2006 @ 4:28pm | ignore this person
PLUNGE....what exactly happened to American Flight 77?
Posted by Mask at 06/13/2006 @ 4:37pm
J-Ro
Sorry, but Agnew was indicted on charges of tax evasion and money laundering, stemming from when he was Governor of Maryland.
Posted by brunowe at 06/13/2006 @ 4:40pm
Rio, I coulda looked them up, but as I said I did not post that drivel.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 4:42pm
When Jackie Presser became president of the Teamsters, he remarked, concerning his qualifications, that he'd never been indicted. Nice to know that the moral standard for a White House job is on the level of the Teamsters.
Posted by brunowe at 06/13/2006 @ 4:43pm
I would hope you would be honest enough to acknowledge that Bush is the first president since Lincoln to visit our troops in the midst of hostilities (and more than once).
he went twice. to the green zone. this is a pathetic line you are peddling here. Hillary went to fucking Iraq. so now we are supposed to support Bush so that he can bring the troops home? you are being duped, they ain't coming home.
and this Bush hate thing is the biggest lie. we hate his policies first, hating him comes later.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 4:56pm
"Bush flies into Baghdad and is greeted with love, respect, and enthusiasm by the great majority of US military personnel."
hahahahahah
Hillary was also greeted with love respect and enthusiasm.
you are funny Liberty, but not John Stewart funny, so don't quit your day job.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 4:59pm
liberty, are you comparing the civil war to Iraq? are you comparing Shrub to Lincoln?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 5:03pm
Comparing Bush to Lincoln in even a small way is atrocious. Moving the process along ... he'd damn well better!
May I admit something? When Bush is transparently dishonest, I do in fact hate him. I hate him personally and wish him ill. He has unchecked power. Can he not at least be truthful?
And I'm absolutely right to feel that way.
Posted by MyParadigm at 06/13/2006 @ 5:04pm
you betcha, Paradigm. the Tories want everybody to love Bush, and are planning a constitutional amendment to that effect.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 5:08pm
Can he not at least be truthful?
Posted by MYPARADIGM 06/13/2006 @ 5:04pm
No, he can't. He wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/13/2006 @ 5:12pm
Cant you just feel how the TRAITOROUS LIBZ are just seething with disgust....Just warms your heart doesnt it!!!
THE LIBERAL CRACKUP IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD
Posted by fukulibz at 06/13/2006 @ 5:14pm
Call me optimistic, but it's (theoretically) possible that this doesn't mean the end of the issue for the White House. They've consistently maintained that they cannot answer any questions about Rove's involvement due to the ongoing criminal investigation. That excuse is now gone -- will the Fourth Estate now step up and ask for the answers they've been denied thus far?
Posted by breasonable at 06/13/2006 @ 5:25pm
Who let the 10 year old loose on the blog? Shouldn't he be at Chuck E. Cheese with LibzSuk and Pontificus playing Skee Ball with grease running down his chin?
Posted by Rapaport at 06/13/2006 @ 5:26pm
You must be to young to remember Pres.R.M. Nixon, V.P.Spiro Agnew, Charles Colson, G.G. Liddy, John Dean etc. or you would have brought it up!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/13/2006 @ 3:16pm
Cute, maybe I should have been more clear and posted "SITTING White House official."
That said, I believe my statement is true and is actually 130 years (since the days of U.S. Grant), notwithstanding your list: Nixon (never indicted); Agnew (pled nolo contendre for tax evasion AFTER resigning); Liddy (NOT a WH official); Dean (not sure he was ever indicted, certainly not while serving as counsel); Colson (indicted after resigning).
Posted by Hman23 at 06/13/2006 @ 5:26pm
B, no they will congratulate Bush on his victory, like the Tory trolls here. but you and I can dream,
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 5:28pm
Posted by FUKULIBZ 06/13/2006 @ 5:14pm
Hey, Annie C came up with a new name ! Wasn't she "fuklibz" last week?
Seriously, ECT. It can be life saving.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/13/2006 @ 5:29pm
I'm not really holding my breath either, Johannes. Just remarking.
Posted by breasonable at 06/13/2006 @ 5:36pm
"you seem to have watched Hillary's visit on Al Jezeera"
That is a beautiful line liberty...I laughed my ass off...then wanted to cry because it probably is true...Thank you
Posted by fukulibz at 06/13/2006 @ 5:55pm
Also there is no comparison between a legislator visiting a war zone and the leader of a nation.
why not?
Caligula was beloved by his troops as well.
you are doing nothing but regurgitating the Bush line, stick to being a flack for Jesus.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 6:00pm
we have killed or captured 40% of the leadership of Al Qaeda worldwide.
not including the guy who attacked us. history flashback: we have killed 40% of the Nazi leadership, but that pesky Hitler is still on the goddamn 1000 year Reich channel.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 6:06pm
Liberty, in his typical sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, and gravely ill-informed fashion, posts:
"Plus, you may dislike [Bush] and the political value of this visit, but it is of immense importance in pushing the new Iraqi government to escalate their independence so our troops can leave.
To denigrate his visit is to actually work against your own (and most libs here) goal of US military disengagement from Iraq. So now the more Bush does to actually bring this hope into reality, liberals continue to snipe and dismiss what is in line with your own goals."
Liberals' feelings and outcry over Bush misadminstration misdeeds misdeeds is not going to affect this White House, that's true...
But can you not get it through your head that it isn't because their opinions are destructive, but because the current Resident doesn't care what you think any more than it does what liberal voters think, unless it helps to consolidate his party's power?
I also offer this, just to rebut your insinuation that itis liberal thought that has been and will continue to keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely:
US 'planning to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq for many years' By Francis Harris in Washington (Filed: 12/06/2006)
America plans to retain a garrison of 50,000 troops, one tenth of its entire army, in Iraq for years to come, according to US media reports.
The revelation came as George W Bush summoned his top political, military and intelligence aides to a summit on Iraq's future today at the presidential retreat at Camp David.
Tomorrow the Americans will talk by video link to Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, and members of his cabinet, as well as American military commanders in Iraq.
The meeting marks the highest profile discussion of Iraq's future so far, and reflects the Bush administration's determination to exploit the two most promising developments in Iraq for many months - the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qa'eda in Iraq, and the completion of the first permanent post-war cabinet.
Mr Bush said the meeting would decide "how to best deploy America's resources in Iraq and achieve our shared goal of an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself".
But despite fierce domestic pressure to reduce troop levels before November's critical mid-term elections, there were growing signals that Gen George Casey, America's Iraq commander, may raise troop levels in the short-term.
Mr Bush said in his weekend radio address that "violence in Iraq may escalate" as terrorists tried to prove that they had survived the loss of their leader.
American commanders are also worried by the situation in the Sunni areas at the heart of the insurgency, where American units have complained of a shortage of men.
Mr Maliki pledged in a Washington Post article to confront the Shia militia, but his plan to "re-establish a state monopoly on weapons" could well generate a confrontation between ultra-religious gunmen and the fledgling Iraq security forces.
America's military would be drawn into any defining battle over who rules Iraq.
Gen Casey has already summoned his main reserve unit, a 3,500-man armoured brigade based in Kuwait and has alerted a Germany-based brigade that it may be needed soon.
Military planners have begun to assess the costs of keeping a 50,000-man force in Iraq for a protracted period of time. At present the total number of serving American troops is about 500,000.
The plan has not yet received presidential approval. But it would fit with the administration's belief that while troops numbers will fall, American forces will have to remain in Iraq beyond Mr Bush's departure from the White House in early 2009.
Military analysts have noted that significant American spending is already being committed to permanent bases in Iraq. They say Iraq's military may soon be able to fight by itself, but it cannot feed or supply itself and it has no air force to speak of.
The Camp David meeting will be attended by Dick Cheney, the vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, Gen Michael Hayden, the CIA director and Gen Peter Pace, America's top soldier.
__________________________
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 6:21pm
More LIB Drivel
Posted by fukulibz at 06/13/2006 @ 6:22pm
Liberty posts:
"Current events have swung momentum back in favor of Bush."
BWAHAHahahaahaahahahahaah
Yeah, okay, buddy, whatever you say. Paul Harvey (no liberal, by any stretch) was commenting on the radio this morning (all puffed-up and happy) about how Bush's approval ratings went up since Zarqawi's death... to a whopping - what was it - 38%?
Whatever, dude.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 6:24pm
"Democrats are seething at these events and losing composure."
Only seething and lost composure I have seen on this board is your good buddy and fellow conservative, Fuklibz.
Is he welcome in your church, and if so, can he introduce himself that way to the flock from the podium?
I want to see that.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 6:26pm
I cant express how much it pleases me to see all the traitors so upset with thier panties all twisted up by the fact reality is starting to kick thier little wussie asses all over the place...From sea to shining sea(Calif-50 to Iraq)
THE LIBERAL CRACKUP IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD
Posted by fukulibz at 06/13/2006 @ 6:34pm
it alarms me that there are conservatives going to such great lengths to defend whatever the bush administration achieves (or doesn't achieve).
how could anyone cheer rove's acquittal? it should piss everyone off! it just shows you what this country is all about: if you have money and power, you can pretty much do whatever you want. you are insulated from the law, from reality. from what 99.9% of the world has to deal with.
Posted by darladoon at 06/13/2006 @ 6:39pm
"...and Bush flies into Baghdad and is greeted with love, respect, and enthusiasm by the great majority of US military personnel."
I'm curious. Just how long have the majority of U.S. troops been in the Green Zone?
Posted by drhammer at 06/13/2006 @ 6:46pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/13/2006 @ 6:34pm
This is what passes for Liberty's logic:
Other guys did bad things, too, long before this guy did bad things, so that negates the importance of any bad thing he's done.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 6:47pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/13/2006 @ 6:44pm
You don't like it, so it isn't true. Yeah, okay.
I wouldn't put any retirement money on your conclusions, pal, and much of the time, you offer them with no substantiation whatsoever.
Your worldview is of holes, wild conclusions based upon snippets of truth amidst buckets of distortion (your big book is the best example of this on the planet), fantasy-based claims of reality....
You proclaim yourself to be a seeker of truth yet you are quick at times to jump on any supposition simply because it is pro-Bush.
Whatever dude.
Stick to religious prosyletizing, Liberty - at least then we know you're clearly full of shit - no disclaimers necessary.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 6:50pm
What a fucking religous bigot...Burn in Hell shithead
Posted by fukulibz at 06/13/2006 @ 6:52pm
maybe the minority gave him the rasperry.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 6:53pm
Fukulibz -
I'm a former Catholic. Jesus the Christ was a remarkable man and teacher. I love most Christians I know, not necessarily because they're Christians, but because they're generally good people.
But there is no hell - sorry to disappoint you, little fella.
Where on earth will you tell people to go now?
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 6:55pm
Fuklibz called someone, anyone else, a bigot!!!!
Funniest quote of the day, bar none.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 6:55pm
Fukulibz -
You pray to your savior with that mouth?
Damn, you really are a funny little rodent. You get funnier all the time.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 6:58pm
See, Johanne, my friend -
I'm trying to take it all with a grain of salt today, like you advised the other day...
he hee hee
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 7:00pm
"But there is no hell"
Sure there is...Living in this country with traitorous LIBZ IS hell on earth....But that will change soon
Posted by fukulibz at 06/13/2006 @ 7:02pm
Posted by FUKULIBZ 06/13/2006 @ 7:02pm
Why, do you plan on offing yourself?
Sweet!
Aim low in case there's a kick, and have a pleasant trip to your non-afterlife!
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 7:04pm
Their duplicitous scheme exposed, I note that Barry U Fuk Libz 25 are trying a 'divide and conquer' strategy, with B Two Five on Nichols' blog, FUL (of shit) on Corn's.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/13/2006 @ 7:07pm
Sorry, that should have been "He/she/it's duplicitous scheme exposed, I note that Barry U Fuk Libz 25 is trying a 'divide and conquer' strategy, with B Two Five on Nichols' blog, FUL (of shit) on Corn's."
Posted by skeletonman at 06/13/2006 @ 7:09pm
Sorry, that should have been "He/she/it's duplicitous scheme exposed, I note that Barry U Fuk Libz 25 is trying a 'divide and conquer' strategy, with B Two Five on Nichols' blog, FUL (of shit) on Corn's."
Posted by skeletonman at 06/13/2006 @ 7:09pm
Damn, a double post. Now I'm looking like the fuck up.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/13/2006 @ 7:10pm
Skeleton, no you're not, double posts notwithstanding.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 7:12pm
New Dawn, sometimes it takes a mountain of salt.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 7:13pm
Skeleton, no you're not, double posts notwithstanding.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/13/2006 @ 7:12pm
Thank you for saying so. You are a gentleman and a scholar, and not necessarily in that order.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/13/2006 @ 7:19pm
ND
You notice this incarnation of "Fuk-head" seems to be predisposed to "panties"? Makes me wonder how he juggles typing, sniffing his sisters' panties and whacking off all at the same time...
Got this mental image of a Beavis & Butthead type .... hu, hu-hu...he said panties
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/13/2006 @ 7:19pm
LOC
ROTF, LMFBO
Posted by skeletonman at 06/13/2006 @ 7:22pm
No words were harmed in the creation of my immediately previous post.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/13/2006 @ 7:22pm
Fu--libz----EASY THERE PARTNER---AT least try to have a civil conversation. If the other side will not --well then maybe then you can lose it (I have a few times)--but at least try to talk to your fellow Americans in a civil tone. Some of the posters on this board are reasonable people---give them a chance.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 7:27pm
"Got this mental image of a Beavis & Butthead type"
Interesting thats your frame of thinking...says a lot of what you must watch in your spare time not busting up rocks getting hit in the head by most of them by your pathetic drivel
Posted by fukulibz at 06/13/2006 @ 7:29pm
Dearest Libz,
I have a confession to make. Some time ago, in a moment of fatuous impulse, I had a tattoo of your name in a large heart inscribed in a most discreet area of my body. I thought it would be an enduring, graphic representation of my feelings for you; the pain of application would be insignificant compared to reading your many erudite postings without benefit of your physical presence. While it seemed a most appropriate thing to do at the time, the adornment has left me in a most awkward position.
If you continue changing your name, I'll soon look like Rod Steiger in "The Illustrated Man".
(If you find that notion intriguing, you may consider this message moot.)
Love,
Dr.
Posted by drhammer at 06/13/2006 @ 7:38pm
David---The story of a life time gone down the drain. You told us it was a done deal. You made us believe. How could you have lied to us? How could you have been so wrong? Oh ---I forgot--your name is David Corn and your agenda driven drivel should always be read with this disclaimer: The material you are about to read should not be confused with the truth. It is pure political propaganda meant for the consumption of the liberal masses.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 7:49pm
Fu--libz----EASY THERE PARTNER---AT least try to have a civil conversation. If the other side will not --well then maybe then you can lose it (I have a few times)--but at least try to talk to your fellow Americans in a civil tone. Some of the posters on this board are reasonable people---give them a chance.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/13/2006 @ 7:27pm
Hey, Libz -
I told you already that even the people you think you're sympatico with here find you to be an an embarassment (congratulations, you've reached Falwell/Robertson status on the Nation's boards - nutty, worthless, deluded kook)...
And Len,
I was about to wax eloquent about how you seem to have adopted such a civil, rational, reasonable tone of late (even when we disagree), and then I read your followup post, which negated most of the good things you had to say in the ones prior...
Do you truly think that:
David Corn does NOT love America, and isn't just as incensed as all of the liberal posters (and you) should be about what a scumbag Karl Rove is?
C'mon, Len, look into the guy's history - he has always been a nasty little political fuck, eager first and foremost (and only) to advance his own despicable little career... I know you know this, no matter what side he was on.
If he were a Dem, every conservative in the country would be up in arms at his grossly divisive and shameless poltical tactics - so why do you continue to shill? You and John Maasch are smarter than this. I know you are.
Are you (and others) really defending Karl Rove jsut because he wasn't indicted?
Or do you just hate David Corn (and "Little Johnny" Nichols and KVH and every other Nation author whom you disagree with) with an unreasonable fervor?
You are the definition of partisanship when you act that way.
So, stop it.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 8:08pm
Come on moonbats admit it. You have had a really sucky last week. Ca-50, Zarqawi gets to see US special forces before he travels to hell, Rove not going to jail, Bush in Bagdad and NOW Ward Churchill is getting canned and the icing on the cake is we get to watch the spectacle of Daryl Hannah making an idiot of herself in a frigging tree!!! God its good to be alive!!!
Posted by vrwc at 06/13/2006 @ 8:21pm
You see Len,
These fucking bastards do not deserve polite civil discourse...They deseve the back of my boot in thier ass.....I say fuck them and all of their LIBERAL twit bretheren assholes..They are anti-american traitors that will continue to be more and more relegated to MINORITY status(THANK GOD). Just sit back and enjoy thier pain and suffering...I know that I am!!!
THE CRACKUP OF THE LOONY LEFT IS SO BEAUTIFUL TO BEHOLD
Posted by fukulibz at 06/13/2006 @ 8:26pm
You winger punkasses have your very own "O.J. Simpson" Well, lets have a party! You can have a big "victory" circle jerk and eat candy and stuff and hold each others hands and make loyalty oaths to the most stupid fucks ever, in American governmental history. But, little fellers, the day of reckoning has not yet arrived.
Cuidado, pinche pendejos!!! Love,
bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 06/13/2006 @ 8:57pm
Bloopy...in the famous words of Squidward....."whatever"
Posted by vrwc at 06/13/2006 @ 9:11pm
Posted by vrwc at 06/13/2006 @ 9:11pm
Libsucker, You reek of goat shit and ignorance. But, I would really love to have a few beers with you. You are so cute and funny!
(Hey, are you maybe gay? I'll just betcha!!) with pending love,
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 06/13/2006 @ 9:12pm
Oh Liberty!! You make me so happy! Yes little man, I am sentimental. And I missed your "Righteousness" I feel cleansed! (Psssst, are you still a fraud for Christ?)
love,
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 06/13/2006 @ 9:16pm
Bloppy...The sound of a big turd smaking against the side of your commode...very appropriate
Posted by fukulibz at 06/13/2006 @ 9:18pm
What if, what if, what if ...
What if the only special prosecutor available in the Clinton administation were the careful, discreet, within-the-law Pat Fitzgerald?
George W. Bush wouldn't have been able to run on his "restoring honor to the White House" schtick, and he would have lost. (Not that he actually won.)
We wouldn't be at war, we wouldn't be up to our ears in debt, we wouldn't have to spend hundreds of millions every day to catch the occasional terrorist ...
Oh, if only.
Posted by MyParadigm at 06/13/2006 @ 9:21pm
More LIB wetdreams
Posted by fukulibz at 06/13/2006 @ 9:22pm
Libz, For all of us, what is your wet dream?
Come on little guy, give us a hint.
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 06/13/2006 @ 9:28pm
Now Libz, the "Stoopid Clock" is running. We are waiting.
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 06/13/2006 @ 9:31pm
My wetdream is the day the great Democrat party returns to it great roots....Supporting the troops, country, etc. Since it looks like that wont happen anytime soon...no wetdreams for me
Posted by fukulibz at 06/13/2006 @ 9:31pm
Liberty posts:
"You proclaim yourself to be a seeker of truth yet you are quick at times to jump on any negative supposition simply because it is anti-Bush"
In response to my:
Posted by NEW DAWN 06/13/2006 @ 6:21pm
Which contained an article entitled:
"US 'planning to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq for many years'"
To which I say this:
THANK YOU, LIBERTY, for acknowledging (accepting, by proxy) that an article with that title is somehow "anti-Bush"!!!
**********************************
(BEGIN RANT - SKIP IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE IT)
Oh, wait, did you mean my comments about GWB personally? Because those are, in fact, form, and function, anti-Bush, indeed.
It is no secret on this board (or to anyone who asks in my life) that I can't stand the man personally.
From his punkass faux-macho swagger (born in Connecticut, educated at an uppity New England prep school like a couple of other presidential candidates... not to name any names - do your own math)
...to his utterly mediocre and often anti-Midas touch, with almost every business he's ever entered into, up to and including the present day...
...to his "Now, lissen, Citizen. Ah'm thuh deciduh so ah'm smarter than you. Don't you get it?" smirk...
...to the way, whenever he gives a speech, he is clearly parroting, imitating, someone actually saying words that they understand, let alone mean...
...to the patronizing manner in which he addresses reasonably-reasonable, rational, educated, often-intellectual, and otherwise decent, well-meaning people like John Maasch and Len Mosse, and then, God only knows why, they come here and talk like they have fallen for him and his ilk...
(GWB talks DOWN to you fellows - WHY are you not also incensed? I really don't get it...)
...to the fringe elements of society, the Fuklibz/Rio/CPT/Rese/Aludra/Liberty/Libzsuk/Plunger/Todd's; rabid partisans, psychologically-damaged haters, grr-kill-killers, the predetermined-prophecy-oriented, the xenophobes, the cognitive-dissonance-afflicted, the ranting-conspiracy-theorists...
who gravitate towards George W. like he's their messiah, the alpha and the omega, the leader of their pack... and can smile and ape in celebration about it like it's all good.
I think it's all gross, and I'll admit it - hell, I'LL SHOUT IT. And that was just the personal stuff. Politically? Oh, no, you didn't...
He disgusts me. His "Presidency" is a joke, both foreign and domestic. His foremost personal agenda when he goes to sleep and when he awakens, every day, is to revel in being the most powerful man on the planet Earth, not to do what is actually best for the world that day - only what he believes is best for those under his wise and all-powerful (rule?) guidance.
If ever there was a very small man with kingly dreams, it is GWB, and with such men it rarely matters who has to get hurt to get there. I'd bet a pinky on that, and anybody who wouldn't is a wuss - this one's a gimme. Trust me, saaaaaafe bet.
The idea of "having a beer" with a man like him if met him in a bar in Texas (and I have been to bars in Texas and never made anything but friends), seems to me somewhere between demeaning and degrading.
(END RANT - THANK YOU FOR PLAYING)
********************
But Liberty -
the article I posted is hardly anti-Bush.
It's pro-factual that the United States intends and has intended to maintain a heavy United States military troop presence in Iraq for an extended period of time, for all intents and purposes, well in advance of, and certainly during, the actual invasion and occupation of the country.
"Permanent bases" have been in progress for years. (Would you like other links? I'd be happy to provide them.)
Unless you'd care to be a man, and put aside your own rabid anti-anything-even-remotely-left-thinking sentiments long enough to acknowledge that the article I posted is not "full of holes, wild conclusions based upon snippets of truth amidst buckets of distortion....", with which I'd be just tickled pink.
Or perhaps you'd like to point to a single "supposition" in that article which is precluded by another source?
I, unlike you, am willing to consider all sources, even (especially) if it runs counter to what I think I "know".
Please, enlighten me, enlighten us, enlighten the entire Nation board, as to the "voluminous errors" in the article I posted?
Pretty please?
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 9:35pm
Libz, I'll buy the beers. We can talk about the future. But, don't dry-hump my leg.
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 06/13/2006 @ 9:40pm
They will never convict one another because both parties are run by political gangsters. Expecting a class of high offenders to enforce law or observe international law. or demand for each invidual in this country the same due process that is offered the highest offenders, is a waste of time.
And talk about crybabies, look how they still drag out the O.J. case, which is nothing but another example of rich man's justice, which is still so bloody racist its proponents can't stand it when a black defendent can actually receive due process.
Posted by JRJunior at 06/13/2006 @ 9:43pm
Come on moonbats admit it. You have had a really sucky last week. Ca-50, Zarqawi gets to see US special forces before he travels to hell, Rove not going to jail, Bush in Bagdad and NOW Ward Churchill is getting canned and the icing on the cake is we get to watch the spectacle of Daryl Hannah making an idiot of herself in a frigging tree!!! God its good to be alive!!!
Posted by VRWC 06/13/2006 @ 8:21
Hello, fellow, you seem new here, so let me welcome you in proper fashion.
I live in California, and CA-50 is not as big a deal as you (or certain Dems tooting their own horns before the failed effort) have made it out to be. The district was going to vote Republican anyway. Point one, buh-bye.
So Zarqawi got to see US special forces before he travels to hell. Did I miss something? Has a liberal blogger here decried Zarqawi's death at the hands of the United States military? I've been on this board since the start and haven't seen anyone do that. Suggest you peruse the board's previous comments before you enter yours. Point two, buh-bye.
So, Rove didn't go to jail. Big whoop. All good things in time. He is, after all, only one man, and this too, shall pass. Point three - buh-bye.
Bush in Baghdad's Green Zone - don't let him outside the building - we take weekly mortar fire! Hee, hee, hee... Just joshing ya, pal!
I don't have anything against Bush being in an active military zone at all. In fact, I wholeheartedly endorse it - he should have done it years ago. Point four, buh-bye!
Darryl who? Oh, the mermaid-chick from the eighties. Riiiight. Very relevant to the discussion at hand. Non-point...
So, check it out. Before you come in and indiscriminately hate-rant against no one in particular (and certainly no one here), think about it first. Compose yourself, order your thoughts.
Then go away.
Buh-bye!
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 9:58pm
How long now until David Corn switchs the object of his obsession to Dick Cheney, from Karl Rove?
or can he? He's been on "Rove-watch" for so long now, I wonder (if in a milder form) he's not locked into it, in the same way RESE and PLUNGER are with their 9/11 "Israelis and Jesuits Were Behind Marilyn Monroe's death" theories.
Posted by Mask at 06/13/2006 @ 10:25pm
My response actually had nothing to do with Rove or some attempt to compare Administrations. Hman23 had said that until Libby, no sitting official in an Administration had been indicted for 130 years. I was simply pointing out the error of his statement.
It had nothing to do with Clinton or comparisons. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/13/2006 @ 8:58pm
Liberty -
HMan's original post (which you responded to) was about the topic of the board, outlined in big, black letters above (scroll up, pal).
Reading comprehension is indeed a wonderful thing.
You aren't very good at being a smartass, Lib. Let it go. Act sanctimonious, instead. That, you've got down.
You just admitted that the only reason you responded to his post was to point out a mote in his eye.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 10:29pm
New Dawn---Didn't say Corn didn't love America---made nor implied no such thing. I said that most of his stuff is nothing more than red meat propaganda for the liberal masses. That is as American as apple pie. I don't agree with it and I was just poking a little fun at the fact that he had gotten it so wrong. Rove is the foremost political operative of our time. He is a political hack in all its conitations----however---the democrats just wish they could clone one just like him but with a slightly liberal tilt. Washington politics is the big leagues. Both parties have such hacks. Democrats hate Rove because he is so damn good at beating them, therefore he is demonized. He is the Presidents political architect---If Gore or Kerry had one as good they would be President.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 10:30pm
Supporting the troops, country, etc. Since it looks like that wont happen anytime soon...no wetdreams for me
Posted by FUKULIBZ 06/13/2006 @ 9:31pm
Hey, there, little fella?
I support our troops and our country).
Need a tissue?
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 10:32pm
NEW DAWN--As to hating Little Johnny, Corn, and KVH---I don't hate them ---I just think that they are wrong about most things. I don't even hate Zero or Chimmy---but they have become excellent candidates if I ever feel I need to hate someone. The hate word is thrown around way too much and too easily. When Johnny puts his political agenda ahead of the country then I call him Little Johnny. Will continue to do so---not with hate --but with a satirical edge that draws attention to his small mindedness. Here is a question that I would like many on this board to answer honestly--the answer will speak volumes-----Do you want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq knowing that it will be seen as a victory for George Bush????? (Success being defined as destruction of the insurgency to such an extent that it can be handled easily by the Iraqi forces; a democratic government in Iraq that can keep the peace)
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 10:42pm
Rove is the foremost political operative of our time. He is a political hack in all its conitations----however---the democrats just wish they could clone one just like him but with a slightly liberal tilt. Washington politics is the big leagues. Both parties have such hacks. Democrats hate Rove because he is so damn good at beating them, therefore he is demonized. He is the Presidents political architect---If Gore or Kerry had one as good they would be President.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/13/2006 @ 10:30pm
Len, apparently, here is where you and I continue to differ. You're okay with everything you just said.
I am not.
And regardless of what you believe your nebulous concept of "the democrats" would believe, I disagree. And I don't speak for them.
Even if a Gore or Kerry had a political operative who divided the country like this one, on either side of the aisle, I would still find him and his tactics and propensity for hurting people
nothing less than repugnant.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 10:42pm
F--LIBZ---Try to have an intelligent conversation with people. They are your fellow citizens. If they come back at you with personal attacks then go get'em Tiger. Speak softly and carry the big stick for those who truly deserve it. Not everyone on this board is a militant extremist. Common ground can be found with most. However, for some there is no hope and when they show you no respect then they deserve none. Zero--Kiss my a--.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 10:46pm
Do you want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq knowing that it will be seen as a victory for George Bush????? (Success being defined as destruction of the insurgency to such an extent that it can be handled easily by the Iraqi forces; a democratic government in Iraq that can keep the peace)
Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/13/2006 @ 10:42pm
Short answer. Yes.
Longer answer. Don't care if it's seen as a "Bush victory". Could have been handled better, true, but that's water under the bridge for the immedaite future.
However, we can no more "end the insurgency" by bombing it than we could smash mercury with a hammer. Every blow sheds droplets.
An understanding of this... is, has been, and remains, the missing component of this equation.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 10:47pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/13/2006 @ 10:46pm
Are you calling me not a militant extremist? How dare you?
Wanna fight?
hee hee hee
Posted by New Dawn at 06/13/2006 @ 10:50pm
New Dawn----The democrats have the same kind of people that divide the nation for political purposes--they are just not as good at getting out the vote and running a campaign as Rove. What do you think James Carville does, what about Jesse Jackson (he is both a political operative and a politician) What about Paul Begala (sp) and Al Sharpton---These people are not uniters--- they are political hacks looking for weaknesses in their opponents so that they can advance their agenda. They do the same thing that Rove does ---rally the base and attack the weaknesses of the opposing side--he has been more successful than his counterparts , therefore he is demonized.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 10:57pm
Not yet---still waiting for Chimmy and ZERO to take up my lunch invitation--until then I will stay in training.. mostly 12oz curls.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 10:59pm
I must say, I expected a tad more from you winger sissys. All of that "circle jerkin" must have the upper body about "plumb wore-out" My danged cats could kick your collective asses.
Love, and love, and more love Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 06/13/2006 @ 11:23pm
Hey Bloppy,
It sure seems you and Left of Sanity talk a lot about circle jerkin, masterbation and sperm a lot on this miserable blog...Are you trying to tell us something??? Frankly its annoying to hear your constant references to those topics...surely you can reference to something else when your bashing Bush and the republicans
Posted by fukulibz at 06/13/2006 @ 11:34pm
Posted by FUKULIBZ 06/13/2006 @ 11:34pm
It sure seems you and Left of Sanity talk a lot about circle jerkin, masterbation and sperm a lot on this miserable blog...Are you trying to tell us something???
I too have noticed Bloppy's rather disturbing fixation with circle-jerking. It tends to get even more intense when Karl Rove's name comes up.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 12:08am
Libz, Are you still up? I thought that the "dime wine" might have rendered you "zeroed out" Well, jest put your "good arm" in a sling and save it till mornin'. You'll need it, as will your worthless "presdint" and staff.
(And to think that I offered a goat-punker like yourself the opportunity to have a beer or two)(You might give Maashy, CPT, and Rio a holler. But be warned, They are a likin' the four-footed variety).
OOPS, but with love (for the ethically, and sexually deficient among us)
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 06/14/2006 @ 12:10am
HMAN,
The least you can do is admit you were wrong, and I was right. I have the score Pontificus 1, HMAN 0. Be honest my good man, I know you have it in you. Go towards the light.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 12:10am
hman23 had said that until Libby, no sitting official in an Administration had been indicted for 130 years. I was simply pointing out the error of his statement.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/13/2006 @ 8:58pm
You and Rio need to read and quit twisting what I actually wrote into something I did not to make your point. I did not say an "official in an Administration." I said "White House official." And clarified it to mean sitting White House official. Rio's examples do not fit and neither do your examples of executive department officials. I stand by my statement, as do the countless numbers of journalists and news organizations that make the same observation. Try to make your point without misquoting me please. It's transparent, lessens your credibility and exposes a weakness in your argument.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/14/2006 @ 12:17am
That said, as the president told the troops today, we continue to fight and kill terrorists over there so they cannot attack us or our allies away from the Middle East. It has been a brilliant stategy and it continues to be highly successful.
The difference is that those who agree with you do not believe that terrorists are determined to kill us even if we leave the Middle East, no that terrorism would be just as dangerous and growing as rapidly even if we had not invaded Iraq.
I believe that mentality does not understand the real nature of radical Islam. This movement has been growing for over 30 years. If it had not been checked by Bush, Blair and other coalition countries, the world would have many more instances of 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali and others.
I believe History will record in future decades that Bush was the key leader to stand up to this world threat and take it on sufficiently to derail it's momentum.
Yet again, someone needs to point out to you that al-Qaida wasn't in Iraq. Zarqawi was an al-Qaida wannabe at the time and Bush could've taken him in 2002 if he was so inclined. Most of the people we are killing in Iraq aren't part of the Islamist militancy but Sunnis who object to being knocked off their perch in Iraq. It is a largely indiginous insurgency that wouldn't have existed if we hadn't gone in. Oh, and al-Qaida itself might've been less dangerous in that case because we would've had more troops to operate in Afghanistan.
Posted by brunowe at 06/14/2006 @ 12:22am
You were right Pontificus. Rove seems to have evaded indictment a few times. Signs certainly pointed to trouble for him. My best guess is he is cooperating with a capital "C."
Indicted or not, what has been revealed still indicates that Rove disclosed for political gain classified information concerning the identity of a CIA asset working on WMD intelligence in Iran. If you care to crow about that, it's fine with me.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/14/2006 @ 12:23am
Potty-ificus, Circle "jerking"? Aren't we a tad formal you pissant fratboy? Sounds like you have oodles of experience. I can see it now, you and the brothers, (as well as the mascots).
Cheers,
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 06/14/2006 @ 12:24am
Pontificus - Fitzgerald is obviously still working on something with an endgame that does not include Rove. Otherwise he would have announced the end of his investigation. Keep that in mind while you are doing your victory lap.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/14/2006 @ 12:25am
"Yet again, someone needs to point out to you that al-Qaida wasn't in Iraq. Zarqawi was an al-Qaida wannabe at the time and Bush could've taken him in 2002"
Wrong on all 3 counts...Read a little you might learn something...Zarqarwi was in IRAQ getting his leg repaired long before our invasion..And Saddam sanctioned that....Al-Queda had many training camps in northern Iraq. Its amazing if you read more than leftwing nutjob blogs you might actually learn some reality
Posted by fukulibz at 06/14/2006 @ 12:27am
Posted by BLOPPY 06/14/2006 @ 12:24am
Sounds like you have oodles of experience. I can see it now, you and the brothers, (as well as the mascots).
Bloppy, for one thing, I am not interested in your sexual fantasies, so please keep them to yourself. Secondly, I hate frats more than you do.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 12:30am
Posted by HMAN23 06/14/2006 @ 12:23am
Thank you for re-affirming my faith in your integrity. Along with the good folks at The Nation, who suffer alternative viewpoints, it's refreshing to see some good faith among the dross.
Indicted or not, what has been revealed still indicates that Rove disclosed for political gain classified information concerning the identity of a CIA asset working on WMD intelligence in Iran. If you care to crow about that, it's fine with me.
It's a tough political war that's being fought in DC, my good man. The feckless Clinton and his not-so-feckless handlers managed to subvert the CIA into a thoroughly politicized (and ineffective) institution, riddled with political moles like Joe Wilson. Legally, Rove did nothing wrong. Morally, he did nothing worse than lower himself to the level of his adversaries.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 12:38am
Political mole. Look at his CV and who he used to work for and who commended him in the past. And Rove was doing the good work of purging the CIA? Ahhhh - so that was his intention. That makes it all better. And which of Rove's adversaries did the things I attribute to Rove?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/14/2006 @ 12:44am
Posted by HMAN23 06/14/2006 @ 12:44am
Political mole. Look at his CV and who he used to work for and who commended him in the past.
As I understand it, Joe Wilson did some good, non-partisan work earlier in his career as a diplomat. It was only later that he became a partisan Democrat. He voted for Gore (and of course Kerry), I understand. And his wife recommended him for the trip to Niger (a role which they both later lied about), a recommendation that a naive Bush Administration (perhaps in some misguided attempt at bipartisanshp) acquiesced to. It's all documented, but I don't have the energy to look up the links right now. Tell me what about this you dispute and I'll document it.
And Rove was doing the good work of purging the CIA?
No, Rove (if he was the instrument at all) was letting it be known that Wilson (who demonstrably misrepresented the findings of his trip to Niger, a finding later documented by a governmental panel) was acting as a political agent for the Democrats in lying about the results of his trip.
Ahhhh - so that was his intention. That makes it all better. And which of Rove's adversaries did the things I attribute to Rove?
Rove was fighting fire with fire - bringing the whole machinery of the scam to light. Again, we don't know that it was Rove that exposed Plame (who was not covert, since Fitzgerald does not allege so) as a CIA employee. But somebody did, and it was not a crime. At least not a prosecutable crime, because if Plame was not covert (and Fitzgerald does not allege that she was, which to me means that she was not) then her status was 'classified'. And we all know that liberal media outlets release classified information all the time. So, at worst, the Administration lowered itself to the level of its critics.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 01:00am
Sorry HMAN, it's too late to discuss this further. Suffice it to say, it's been a bad week for the anti-Bush agenda. We can discuss the details later, hopefully.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 01:04am
Doesn't it trouble anyone that this supposedly classified CIA agent's husband wrote an editorial disclosing he had gone on a mission for the CIA? How useful was she going to be as a "covert" CIA agent once her husband broadcast to the world that he had worked with the CIA?
Posted by sparky16 at 06/14/2006 @ 01:11am
"Even if a Gore or Kerry had a political operative who divided the country like this one,"
They did and they do..his name is Carville.
Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2006 @ 01:13am
"Bloppy...The sound of a big turd smaking against the side of your commode...very appropriate"
Posted by FUKULIBZ 06/13/2006 @ 9:18pm | ignore this person
You are close, but..
Actually, BLOPPY, when spelled backwards,YPPOLB, is the sound shit makes when it hits a shallow toilet..which is the exact sounds his posts make as soon as the electrons begin to move..
Interesting reading and posts tonite..except, yppolb, of, course...just nothing there, as all have seen again. Par for the course.
Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2006 @ 01:22am
I think that I might try an experiment today, by ignore listing every poster BUT Bloppy (yes, that means all of your alter-egos FUL, including VRWC, your latest iteration).
Damn but that Bloppy guy slays me with his verbal thrashings of winger nebisches.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/14/2006 @ 06:21am
David, (this is intended as a personal communication to you, not as a comment on blog)
Very glad you're doing the book on how the White House operates (character assassination, hypocrisy, blaming everyone else, welshing on promises) spawned by Rove/ Wilson/ Plame case. Please consider putting in a good graphic (at least an illustrated timeline) on Rove/Libby/Novak etc... Humans think visually, but sometimes journalists and writers struggle to put everything exclusively into words. As a sometimes editor (primarily of scientific content) I've had to urge writers to get help (from experienced editors and graphics people) into translating their stuff back into images that crystallize what their trying to convey solely in words. The editors of Science Times, Scientific American and other good publications are very good at this, and I hope you will put someone on your book team who will help you make a graphic that will show everyone look at with one glance into what you have pieced together.
See "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information" by Edward Tufte http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0961392142/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/002-13788 80-6273656?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Thanks for your attention
Peter Braun, M.D.
Posted by peterbraun at 06/14/2006 @ 09:59am
It's only too clear the conservatives have little to celebrate - inflation up; Wall street down; unemployment up; balance of payments deficit in the stratosphere; national levels of debt highest in the country's history; America considered a greater global threat than a nuclear armed Iran (even by their allies); dollar exchange rate on the skids; popularity of the chimp president lowest since Nixon; senior administrators in the White House idicted for trial;
Posted by inveresk at 06/14/2006 @ 10:01am
this "scorekeeping" is childish and pathetic, grow up.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2006 @ 10:07am
Ultimately, fascist governments can only be displaced by force.
Posted by rabblerowzer at 06/14/2006 @ 10:09am
It's only too clear the conservatives have little to celebrate - inflation up; Wall street down; unemployment up; balance of payments deficit in the stratosphere; national levels of debt highest in the country's history; America considered a greater global threat than a nuclear armed Iran (even by their allies); dollar exchange rate on the skids; popularity of the chimp president lowest since Nixon; senior administrator in the White House idicted for trial; energy prices at their highest in the country's history; the Iraq war debacle.
Let's face it, with this sort of performance record and the country on the skids under the direction of their pea brained CIC, they need every and any excuse to whoop and holler. So let's be gracious and allow the poor dottards their illusory day to celebrate the fact that the assistant to their VP is NOT going to be indicted as a criminal. This is such wonderful news for the party and the country.
Posted by inveresk at 06/14/2006 @ 10:13am
Ponti
Rove... was acting as a political agent for the Democrats in lying about the results of his trip.
About the most salient comment I can think of on this statement is Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha..... You didn't type that with a straight face, right?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/14/2006 @ 10:14am
I still haven't gotten a rational explanation ... a reasonable... semi-coherent... legible response as to why the neo-fascist androids are so happy that Rove did not get indicted. It's only along the lines of "WHOOO HOOO! In your face Liberal scum! Rove got away with manipulating the press and doing untold damage to national security by tossing around the name of a CIA operative (covert or otherwise) just to punish someone for telling the truth in the face of bald faced lies! High Five!"
Fecal matter has more positive attributes than the ideolgical fervor of neocon android Koolade Klub members.
Posted by Turk33 at 06/14/2006 @ 10:16am
ike bad currency that drives out good, certain blind hatred foulmouth posters are clogging up these threads and driving away adults who actually have something to say.of course I put them on ignore, as do most others. but I will go further, anyone who actually answers and engages these louts, such as fuk whatever, will also be ignored. this also goes for those who resort to schoolyard taunts and the like, you too will be ignored. I just don't have the time for such jejeune pranks.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2006 @ 10:30am
It was only later that he became a partisan Democrat.
partisan democrat? heaven forfend, that's really terrible. maybe not so terrible as the election supervisors being head of the re-elect Bush committe. Ponti, you are a joke
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2006 @ 10:33am
"It has been a brilliant stategy and it continues to be highly successful."
sure
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2006 @ 10:34am
How useful was she going to be as a "covert" CIA agent once her husband broadcast to the world that he had worked with the CIA?
Posted by SPARKY16 06/14/2006 @ 01:11am
Gee Sparky, I guess something like that would be for the people at the CIA to decide. You know the people in charge of the agency? I kind of figure they have creative minds and all considering they DO engage in something called "covert" operations from time to time. But I guess since you think so sitting in front of your computer, its ok for poeple at the the White House to make that decision on their own and expose people to potential harm.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/14/2006 @ 10:40am
Ponti -
Not sure how much further intelligent discussion we can have on some of the issues you raise, but ...
It was only later that he became a partisan Democrat. He voted for Gore (and of course Kerry), I understand.
You make it sound like he contracted some disease. At what point did he become "partisan" and what does that mean - he expressed an opinion - oh dear! And, oh my, he voted for a Democrat. I wasn't aware that voting in an election brings about an irrefutable conflict of interest. I suppose anyone who voted for Bush should not be trusted with their views on intelligence either, given their vote proves them "partisan" and all. Perhaps we should have a blanket rule that these people simply cannot vote.
And his wife recommended him for the trip to Niger (a role which they both later lied about), a recommendation that a naive Bush Administration (perhaps in some misguided attempt at bipartisanshp) acquiesced to. It's all documented, but I don't have the energy to look up the links right now.
What did they lie about exactly? They both said Plame brought Wilson's name up to her superiors when it was being considered to send someone to Niger. True. She introduced him at a meeting and then left. True. Some people have written that Plame authorized the trip or was the one who sent Wilson (I can only assume you believe this). Not true. Plame did not have that authority. Good luck finding the energy to locate the documentation supporting your view. It's not going to be found. And good luck finding support for any notion that the administration had their arms twisted to send Wilson as a PR move ("look we are sending a Democrat!"). Wilson was the appropriate person for the job. Name another person who should have been sent in his place.
Wilson ... was acting as a political agent for the Democrats
Which Democrats organized this? Please be specific and give me the details of this clandestine operation.
And which part of Wilson's conclusion was false, the part about there being nothing behind the Niger intelligence? The intelligence that the Bush Administration was told at least a half dozen times was likely bogus in advance of the SOTU speech and other public statements? The intelligence based on forged documents?
Again, we don't know that it was Rove that exposed Plame
Whether he is charged with a crime or not, we do know that Rove spoke to at least two reporters about Plame. He discussed classified information with reporters that put people at risk and had the potential to undermine national security.
Plame (who was not covert, since Fitzgerald does not allege so)
We have had this debate too many times. Facts are not only dictated by the results of criminal investigations. Plame's status is but one element of certain crimes. Fitzgerald is not obligated to make public a detailed list of all factual findings, only charges being brought and the facts relevant to those charges. Simply because Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with a crime for which Plame's status is an element does not mean she was not covert. I have cited numerous sources to you in the past showing that Fitzgerald actually does have facts indicating Plame was covert (his affidavit; Judge Tatel's opinion). There are also other external sources and the fact that the CIA wanted an investigation initiated in he first place. You are in denial and do not seem to understand how a criminal prosecution works.
And we all know that liberal media outlets release classified information all the time. So, at worst, the Administration lowered itself to the level of its critics.
It is not a crime for a media outlet that learns of classified information to print it. It CAN be a crime for the person with security clearance to give such information to the press. It sounds like you are ok with people doing this for a political reason. Thanks for the insight into your priorities. I'd say it was a reckless move that put people's lives at risk and dismantled a national security operation. But in your view it's just tough politics. I am sure those that work in a classified or covert capacity and maybe put their lives at risk appreciate that their safety is dependent on the whims of political operatives like Karl Rove.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/14/2006 @ 11:18am
Let's see if I can follow the arguments:
Obviously it's hunky dory (sp?) for Republican operatives/White House officials to spread classified infomation but not for the media? And those Republican operatives/White House officials still have security clearance? And the neofascist Koolade Klubbers can cheer about said Republican operatives/White House officials not getting indicted?
Thank God Bush bought integrity and honor back to the White House!
Posted by Turk33 at 06/14/2006 @ 11:48am
"Even if a Gore or Kerry had a political operative who divided the country like this one,"
They did and they do..his name is Carville.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/14/2006 @ 01:13am
That's bullshit, John. Carville's words, name, and influence do not even remotely approach Rove's.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/14/2006 @ 11:51am
ike bad currency that drives out good, certain blind hatred foulmouth posters are clogging up these threads and driving away adults who actually have something to say.of course I put them on ignore, as do most others. but I will go further, anyone who actually answers and engages these louts, such as fuk whatever, will also be ignored. this also goes for those who resort to schoolyard taunts and the like, you too will be ignored. I just don't have the time for such jejeune pranks.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/14/2006 @ 10:30am
A shame. Bye, Johanne.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/14/2006 @ 11:54am
Posted by HMAN23 06/14/2006 @ 11:18am
STELLAR post, H.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/14/2006 @ 11:58am
new Dawn, I'm not going anywhere, the jerks are going
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2006 @ 12:05pm
Johanne -
I meant iggying me as one of the participants - I have every intention of continuing to slap the resident hate-ranting morons when the situation calls for it...
Didja catch the "Aim low in case there's a kick" line? C'mon, that's funny, funny stuff... ;)
In all seriousness, though, I actually emptied my iggy list just yesterday, so I'm probably just in a different frame of mind. Recently, in my real life, a friend of mine just got smacked with some pretty silly censorship, and I'm pretty against that... So no iggies for me for now.
You do what you gotta do (I respect you for that), and forgive me when I fight back against the monsters with monstrosity. I mean well.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/14/2006 @ 12:17pm
Dawn, when I read A instead of B, that is not censorship. there is a lot of crap out there, if you should choose to wade in it, that is your privilege. it will mean however that any pearls of wisdom you wish to share will be lost on me. let me just add that I don't think i'm very important, here or elsewhere. life is full of choices. I make mine and you make yours.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2006 @ 12:26pm
Johann
in light of your 6/14 10:43AM ... my emails have the following in the signature block:
"I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes." - George W Bush 8/21/00
{The invasion of Iraq} "...is a catastrophic success." - George W Bush 8/29/04
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/14/2006 @ 12:53pm
inversk and turk33, glad you are back.
Posted by loveloki at 06/14/2006 @ 1:39pm
Dawn, when I read A instead of B, that is not censorship. there is a lot of crap out there, if you should choose to wade in it, that is your privilege. it will mean however that any pearls of wisdom you wish to share will be lost on me. let me just add that I don't think i'm very important, here or elsewhere. life is full of choices. I make mine and you make yours.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/14/2006 @ 12:26am
I think you're important, pal.
Posted by New Dawn at 06/14/2006 @ 1:55pm
Well, well...so the wingnuts, who cry into their towels about "non-elected, liberal judges" when some 15 year old African-American male gets off for being a first time offender, are waving the flag now that their lying, draft-dodging, agent-outing boytoy is let off the hook. Just like they did when there boy Ollie got off on a technicality.
Rove lied and outted an undercover agent. McClellan lied. Bush lied. But that's OK according to the wingnuts. But it's not OK according to honest, law abiding citizens that make up this country. And we have to keep reminding Americans that, while the hoodlums in the White House got off on a technicality (this time), they are guilty of lies, corruption, and dirty politics that hurt citizens everywhere.
Posted by rbohan at 06/14/2006 @ 2:16pm
very fine RB
and thanks Dawn
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2006 @ 2:18pm
I think it's fair to say that in the matter of Rove, nothing bad happened for the Tories yesterday. to say that something good happened to Bush is going too far.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2006 @ 3:14pm
Rove is nothing if not competent as a political operative. Given that Bush couldn't get elected dogcatcher without him, I have to disagree with JR. Rove being free of legal problems has to be a plus for Bush. Although with a set of facts this bad, a return to "message discipline" may not do him any good any more.
Posted by MyParadigm at 06/14/2006 @ 3:27pm
here we go again. One dem leader against a time-table pullout of iraq. Another dem leader saying he was wrong. And the other dem leader saying we have 10 years to save the planet. The liberal wing hoping the judicial branch saves them via indictments/prosecution. Obviously the garden variety "conservative democrat" has no place in this liberal insanity. Do democrats enjoy minority political status?
Posted by koza44 at 06/14/2006 @ 3:37pm
Koz, blather
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2006 @ 4:11pm
the whole affair is a pr disaster for Bush, and the fact that someone didn't get indicted does nothing to soothe that. when someone does something good, that's a good thing. this isn't. Joseph wilson had the last word here
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2006 @ 4:14pm
sniff, sniff
Thanks to Johannes and Loki for welcoming me back - it has been awhile, mostly because I needed a break from the neo-fascist circular ideolgical masturbation, and because I found a local message board where I could slap around people that live in my general vicinity when they defended torture or whooped it up when they got great news (This just in - Rove got away with being a slime! High Five! This just in - we killed the biggest cockroach - pass the champagne!).
But when it came right down to it, I missed the level of discourse on this site - so I'm back!
Posted by Turk33 at 06/14/2006 @ 4:44pm
I'm back, and missing typo's! ideological
I can spell and think, though apparently not at the same time :-P
Posted by Turk33 at 06/14/2006 @ 4:46pm
I'd be interested to hear what you leftists think of this story.
"At the time I started my business, the Left had taught me that business and capitalism were based on exploitation: exploitation of consumers, workers, society, and the environment. I believed that "profit" was a necessary evil at best, and certainly not a desirable goal for society as a whole. However, becoming an entrepreneur completely changed my life. Everything I believed about business was proven to be wrong.
The most important thing I learned about business in my first year was that business wasn't based on exploitation or coercion at all. Instead I realized that business is based on voluntary cooperation. No one is forced to trade with a business; customers have competitive alternatives in the market place; employees have competitive alternatives for their labor; investors have different alternatives and places to invest their capital. Investors, labor, management, suppliers -- they all need to cooperate to create value for their customers. If they do, then any realized profit can be divided amongst the creators of the value through competitive market dynamics.
In other words, business is not a zero-sum game with a winner and loser. It is a win, win, win, win game -- and I really like that. However, I discovered despite my idealism that our customers thought our prices were too high, our employees thought they were underpaid, the vendors would not give us large discounts, the community was forever clamoring for donations, and the government was slapping us with endless fees, licenses, fines, and taxes.
Were we profitable? Not at first. Safer Way managed to lose half of its capital in the first year -- $23,000. Despite the loss, we were still accused of exploiting our customers with high prices and our employees with low wages. The investors weren't making a profit and we had no money to donate. Plus, with our losses, we paid no taxes. I had somehow joined the "dark side" -- I was now one of the bad guys. According to the perspective of the Left, I had become a greedy and selfish businessman. At this point, I rationally chose to abandon the leftist philosophy of my youth, because it no longer adequately explained how the world really worked."
John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market
Note: Whole Foods Market is one of the biggest success stories of recent years. The 'Zero Sum Game' fallacy Mr. Mackey mentions is one of the central fallacies of the leftist philosophy. Since many people live in zero sum game professions (bureaucrats, educational professionals, etc) it's extremely difficult to combat this leftist delusion.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 7:33pm
Koz, blather
Posted by JOHANNESROLF
Thank you. after listening to Pelosi (Agenda?), Hilliary, Kerry, Gore, and the response to Rove in the last 24 hrs, that is exactly right..."Blather!"
Posted by koza44 at 06/14/2006 @ 8:00pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/14/2006 @ 11:18am
You make it sound like he contracted some disease. At what point did he become "partisan" and what does that mean - he expressed an opinion - oh dear!
par·ti·san 1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea. adj. 2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.
By my definition, a partisan is someone who can be expected to put the interests of a group or a cause ahead of the truth and/or the national interest. Some people are partisan Democrats, some people are partisan leftists, and some people are both. That is the description that I put forth for Joe Wilson. It also describes many of the regular posters here (Johannesrolf comes most immediately to mind), whose blind hatred of Bush can be explained most readily not by any flaw of the man himself, but of the fact that he is the symbol of the traditional American ideas that stymie the left and/or the Democrats. As proof of my thesis, you might want to stick around til 2009, when the blind hatred will be transferred to the next enemy of the group.
And, oh my, he voted for a Democrat. I wasn't aware that voting in an election brings about an irrefutable conflict of interest. I suppose anyone who voted for Bush should not be trusted with their views on intelligence either, given their vote proves them "partisan" and all. Perhaps we should have a blanket rule that these people simply cannot vote.
My statement was that Joe Wilson was a partisan, and as only one piece of supporting evidence I stipulate that he was a Gore and Kerry supporter. It's fair to say that most Democrat and/or leftist partisans voted for Gore and Kerry. Granted, not all Gore and Kerry voters are partisan, however.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 8:00pm
Pontificus,
Of course no one can really disagree with the statements made - honest, ethical, principled CEO's obviously weigh their profits and the bottom line against the interests of their employees and customers (who are, after all, the people creating the wealth for the CEO's). All we expect as "leftists" is that government protect us from the random CEO with, shall we say, less concern about anything other than his/her bottom line. The last time this country had massive deregulation, there was near slave labor, children working 16 hour days, maggots in meat products, etc.
And as somebody in a "zero sum profession" - I'm a teacher - I disagree with your assessment that mine is a zero sum profession. I get paid decently (not at the same rate as other professionals with my education and experience, but I knew that going in), but I don't think that the students I teach are zero sums - they're just not money in somebody's ledger. And I don't subscribe to the philosophy that he with the most toys wins - it's shallow, crass, and completely selfish. Don't get me wrong, I love my toys, but I don't judge those with fewer toys as being worth less than me, and I don't count those with more as better than me. There are plenty of people I know who would be considered poor who are far better people than I am, and I know some people with big cars and bigger boats who stink of greed and nastiness.
Posted by Turk33 at 06/14/2006 @ 8:08pm
thanks for the info ponti. i was wishing and hoping a whole foods would come to montana. but thanks to your post, i know the owner is a simplistic, black and white thinking idiot and i will never support him with one cent.
Posted by loveloki at 06/14/2006 @ 8:14pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/14/2006 @ 11:18am
What did they lie about exactly? They both said Plame brought Wilson's name up to her superiors when it was being considered to send someone to Niger. True. She introduced him at a meeting and then left. True. Some people have written that Plame authorized the trip or was the one who sent Wilson (I can only assume you believe this). Not true. Plame did not have that authority. Good luck finding the energy to locate the documentation supporting your view. It's not going to be found.
It's available in numerous places, here was the easiest one to find:
Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.
http://tinyurl.com/67bfp
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 8:18pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/14/2006 @ 11:18am
And good luck finding support for any notion that the administration had their arms twisted to send Wilson as a PR move ("look we are sending a Democrat!"). Wilson was the appropriate person for the job. Name another person who should have been sent in his place.
I really haven't a clue as to who would have been better. But I don't believe that he was the only one qualified, either.
It is traditional for incoming administrations to make a clean sweep of previous Administration holdovers, especially those in sensitive positions, on the theory that they are politically untrustworthy. I didn't say that Bush expected to receive some PR benefit from keeping Joe Wilson around. My presumption was that if Bush believed his own rhetoric about bipartisanship, he may have kept Wilson (and many others in the CIA) around on the theory that people may not agree with him but they may still be okay to keep around. Joe Wilson put the lie to that.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 8:25pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 06/14/2006 @ 8:14pm
thanks for the info ponti. i was wishing and hoping a whole foods would come to montana. but thanks to your post, i know the owner is a simplistic, black and white thinking idiot and i will never support him with one cent.
That's a sad commentary on your outlook, LL.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 8:26pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 06/14/2006 @ 8:14pm
thanks for the info ponti. i was wishing and hoping a whole foods would come to montana. but thanks to your post, i know the owner is a simplistic, black and white thinking idiot and i will never support him with one cent.
Come to think of it, you're exemplifying the previous points I made about partisanship. Some people are so partisan they will put leftism and the Democratic Party over truth or national interest. You seem to be saying, you're so partisan you'll put these concepts over even your own self interest, by denying yourself a product you wanted to buy. Cutting off your nose to spite your face, so to speak.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 8:35pm
if he was that much of an idiot when he was "on the left" ponti, i can't imagine what a rabid frothing-at-the-mouth dog he is for the right. probably along the lines of our little friend annie.
Posted by loveloki at 06/14/2006 @ 8:36pm
no ponti, i'm not against the "free market." i'm not against profit. i'm on the left. and i'm not going to support an idiot like that monetarily or in any other way.
Posted by loveloki at 06/14/2006 @ 8:38pm
Wilson ... was acting as a political agent for the Democrats
Which Democrats organized this? Please be specific and give me the details of this clandestine operation.
I don't know that Wilson coordinated with anybody, at least not at first. Certainly, he has received an awful lot of public support from Democrats at all levels, pretty much every step of the way. It's not a conspiracy, and I never painted it as such. It's a lie supported by partisanship.
And which part of Wilson's conclusion was false, the part about there being nothing behind the Niger intelligence? The intelligence that the Bush Administration was told at least a half dozen times was likely bogus in advance of the SOTU speech and other public statements? The intelligence based on forged documents?
Again, from the Post:
http://tinyurl.com/create.php
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
Further, there is this about Plame's recommendation and Wilson's denial of same:
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.
"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."
Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."
and what about those forged documents?
The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 8:47pm
Still hung on this non-story.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/14/2006 @ 8:57pm
HMAN stated
Whether he is charged with a crime or not, we do know that Rove spoke to at least two reporters about Plame. He discussed classified information with reporters that put people at risk and had the potential to undermine national security.
Plame had already been, to all intents and purposes, outed by her own husband when he went public with his attack on the Administration, where he mentioned he went at the behest of the CIA. Many analysts I have read agree that she was outed at the time his article was published, if not before. Not only that, she had used her own position as a CIA employee, in an attempt to undermine the Administration (and she is only one of many Clinton Administration CIA holdovers to do so, I might add, see: Mary McCarthy). To say to reporters that she was a CIA employee was to reiterate a known fact, and to say that it undermined, or had the potential to undermine national security, is absurd. Far more damage has been done by the NYT in its coverage on the War on Terror.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 9:09pm
Rove put nobody at risk.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/14/2006 @ 9:18pm
HMAN wrote
We have had this debate too many times. Facts are not only dictated by the results of criminal investigations. Plame's status is but one element of certain crimes. Fitzgerald is not obligated to make public a detailed list of all factual findings, only charges being brought and the facts relevant to those charges. Simply because Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with a crime for which Plame's status is an element does not mean she was not covert.
Whatever. But until someone is charged, it's a non-issue, and your assertions are supported only by your opinions. You're free to have them, but just don't confuse them with the facts.
I have cited numerous sources to you in the past showing that Fitzgerald actually does have facts indicating Plame was covert (his affidavit; Judge Tatel's opinion).
Those documents were preliminary to the investigation. The investigation has shown no basis for prosecution, so those documents are moot. Regardless of where he started, Fitzgerald has ended up with no indictments of anyone regarding Plame's allegedly covert status. In my world, you have to be convicted before you are guilty. In yours, even an indictment doesn't seem necessary. You live in your world, I'll live in mine.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 9:21pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 06/14/2006 @ 8:36pm
if he was that much of an idiot when he was "on the left" ponti, i can't imagine what a rabid frothing-at-the-mouth dog he is for the right. probably along the lines of our little friend annie.
I'm wondering if, in an earlier life, you would have burned him at the stake for heresy.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 9:24pm
Plame means as much to national security as Maxwell Smart did.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/14/2006 @ 9:26pm
HMAN wrote
It is not a crime for a media outlet that learns of classified information to print it.
That's debatable. It is my hope that the NYT reporters who have been publishing classified information leaked by renegade CIA employees should be prosecuted and fined/jailed if found guilty. Such publications have caused real and demonstrable damage to national security.
It CAN be a crime for the person with security clearance to give such information to the press. It sounds like you are ok with people doing this for a political reason.
Absolutely not. On the contrary, that is what I would say about you when you support the NYT for publishing info about our wiretapping capabilities.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 9:35pm
My statement was that Joe Wilson was a partisan,
sofuckingwhat.is there anyone in Washington, or the rest of the country, that isn't. this is all very funny coming from you Ponti. you are a one man theatre of the absurd
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2006 @ 10:21pm
Ponti -
Your Wilson talking points go right down the line. Sourcing Susan Schmidt of the Post certainly explains things.
Read this: http://perfidy.org/index.php/weblog/2004/07/P15/
or http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003143.php
And YOU were the one saying Fitzgerald's lack of a charges shows Plame was not covert. Now you say "whatever," its a "non-issue." Whatever is right. My opinions are supported by what I have always cited to you. Your opinion is based on a negative, and nothing affirmative.
Calling someone a partisan all the time is pretty convenient for you. You can use it to explain nearly anything without actually supporting your opinions with anything substantive.
And which statute did you have in mind for charging a media outlet? The one Gonzales is interested in unearthing? I guess we'll see. I think even this Supreme Court would disagree.
Finally, Rove had clearance. He passed on classified information to at least two reporters. You are happy Rove is not being charged. I'd say you are ok with it.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/14/2006 @ 10:41pm
You are a partisan.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/14/2006 @ 10:42pm
Whole Foods is a fine store. the owner's political views don't seem to affect his business acumen. we have others too, Fairway comes to mind
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2006 @ 11:01pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/14/2006 @ 10:41pm
Your Wilson talking points go right down the line. Sourcing Susan Schmidt of the Post certainly explains things.
As we have seen, my 'talking points', as you call them, are nothing more than a reading back to you of what's already on the public record. I don't know what your gripe with Susan Schmidt is, but ad hominem attacks should be beneath you.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 11:17pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/14/2006 @ 10:42pm
You are a partisan.
I don't think so. I have many points at which I disagree with the Bush Administration (immigration, for one), and many points at which I agreed with the Clinton Administration. My cast of mind is very similar to that of the Whole Foods store guy, actually. I disagree with leftism because it doesn't adequately recognize the world as it really works. This is certainly borne out by the failure of every state and system adhering to leftist principles. These facts are so plain that only a partisan, or one who is insulated from the workings of our economy, could fail to see them.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 11:24pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/14/2006 @ 10:41pm
Finally, Rove had clearance. He passed on classified information to at least two reporters.
Then why do you think he is not being charged for that?
You are happy Rove is not being charged.
I'm happy that after an extensive investigation, a federal prosecutor has decided that he apparently has not done anything illegal. What's your problem with that? Not the result you wanted? If you were non-partisan, you should be satisfied with the result, regardless of your prejudices.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 11:28pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/14/2006 @ 10:21pm
sofuckingwhat.is there anyone in Washington, or the rest of the country, that isn't. this is all very funny coming from you Ponti. you are a one man theatre of the absurd
I think you're looking at the world through a mirror, Hans. And I don't see how foaming at the mouth is going to help your case.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 11:34pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/14/2006 @ 10:41pm
I've read a good bit of that perfidy.org document. It's pretty long-winded and circuitous in its reasoning. Susan Schmidt's analysis, in contrast, seems pretty clear and straightforward. I'll try to make heads or tails of what perfidy.org is talking about, but it doesn't seem promising.
Posted by pontificus at 06/14/2006 @ 11:59pm
Longwinded or necessarily detailed? I guess if you prefer soundbites taken out-of-context, sloppy quoting and a failure to characterize things accurately, Schmidt is your writer. She makes it appear so "clear and straightforward" in the hopes that the reader will not actaully dig any deeper than her slanted overview.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 10:21am
Do you deny that Rove discussed classified information with reporters?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 10:22am
I know there's really no way of telling for sure, but I wonder...
How much of a loss in his book sales, will David Corn suffer now with Karl Rove not being indicted?
I'd venture atleast 20-25%...hard to sell a book about a guy who was "almost" indicted.
Posted by Mask at 06/15/2006 @ 10:24am
If you actually gave a shit about national security, you'd be upset that, at a mimimum, Rove and Libby did not act appropriately and prudently. Whatever they knew or did not know about Plame, their primary obligation should have been to protect classified information. Instead, their priority was to use the information to engage in a political attack in callous disregard (even if not intentional or criminal) of their obligations or the potential consequences.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 10:28am
Hman Remember why all of the wingnuts hate Clinton so much it all starts with lying to a grand jury, to them that is a heinous crime. But when their idols Rove and Libby get caught with their butts in the cookie jar wha-la not a problem.
This issue is not over the real shit still hasn't hit the fan yet, it's about to fall my guess is late July or Aug.
To the wanker squad cpt, the great antichrist ll-lvl-lvl?, fucnuts reality is more than preception it's the truck that hits you when your busy looking the other way! Obviously you keep your rose colored glasses on, but how can you see anything with that much shit on them.
Posted by dycel8r at 06/15/2006 @ 11:55am
What shit do you see happening Dy?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 11:57am
Posted by HMAN23 06/15/2006 @ 10:28am
If you actually gave a shit about national security, you'd be upset that, at a mimimum, Rove and Libby did not act appropriately and prudently. Whatever they knew or did not know about Plame, their primary obligation should have been to protect classified information. Instead, their priority was to use the information to engage in a political attack in callous disregard (even if not intentional or criminal) of their obligations or the potential consequences.
As I stated previously, it is the opinion of many analysts that Plame was outed by her own husband when he decided to use his position to mount a politically-motivated attack on the Bush Administration. Moreover, as I documented for you previously, it was already felt that Plame's status had been compromised by previous events during the 90's, and that Plame's status was compromised by the fact that she openly commuted to CIA HQ. Thus, it is doubtful that Rove released any classified information that was not already known. You have to admit, this is the most likely reason why Fitzgerald decided that Rove was not chargeable.
I do care an awful lot about the release of classified information for political purposes, and thus I would expect you to join me in hoping that the NYT is prosecuted for same.
Posted by pontificus at 06/15/2006 @ 12:53pm
I will not join you Ponti. The NYT is not given security clearance. That is why they cannot be charged. If you want to go after those who release classified information to the NYT, that is a different situation.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 1:40pm
Re Liberty's quote: Spoken like a real partisan, eh Ponti?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 1:41pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/15/2006 @ 1:40pm
I will not join you Ponti. The NYT is not given security clearance. That is why they cannot be charged.
Legally, perhaps, they are in the clear; that remains to be seen. Morally, they are responsible for damaging our national security by letting terrorists know what we are up to, in some misguided attempt to damage the Administration. If the press had done this during WWII (by releasing info about Ultra, for example), they would have been jailed, if not shot, for treason. This is the degrading effect that leftist partisanship has had towards the political atmosphere in our country.
I find it ironic that you are willing to hold Rove morally responsible for the your purported (and demonstrably false) reason of releasing classified information (while not contesting the idea that no harm had been done, or at least failing to provide any evidence or even any assertion as to what harm had been done), even while you face the fact that he did nothing illegal. At the same time, you are not willing to make any judgement about the moral failings of the NYT, preferring to hide behind the assertion that nothing they did was illegal.
The true mark of a partisan, don't you think? Different standards, depending on whose ox is being gored?
Posted by pontificus at 06/15/2006 @ 2:42pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/15/2006 @ 1:22pm
You're correct, of course, if we waste time arguing points with those who are not arguing in good faith, we're wasting our time. The left will pick up any loose cudgel like Joe Wilson that seems useful, even for a moment, if it seems they might gain some momentary advantage from it. Like the countless other bogus 'issues' that have come up over the last 6 six years, this one seems destined for the dustbin. Hell, half the lefties have forgotten about it already.
Posted by pontificus at 06/15/2006 @ 2:51pm
Ponti - the difference between Rove and the press is that Rove is given security clearance and the NYT is not. True, it has a legal effect, but what also separates the two is that people in classified, secret and potentially dangerous postions need to trust that those who are given access to information concerning them will remain secret. People in those postions rightfully do not have that same expectation with a media outlet, because the media is not authorized to even know about the information. Like I said, go after those that leak to the NYT if you wish, but not the NYT itself. Rove damaged the trust for political reasons.
I cannot provide evidence that harm was done, but neither can you provide any that it was harmless. I believe the CIA has (or is) reporting on this, but it is (or will be) classified. Certainly Rove could not have known in advance that there would be no potential harm, so, at a minimum, he should have been more careful.
Liberty - my point was that the quote from Wilson did not seem too "partisan" to me. So which is it, partisan Democrat, or playing the Democrats for fools?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 4:03pm
Liberty - Ponti's point was not that Wilson was playing the partisan. That may be your point. His was that Wilson is a "partisan" whatever the hell that adds to the discussion.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 4:04pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/15/2006 @ 4:03pm
Like I said, go after those that leak to the NYT if you wish, but not the NYT itself.
It's starting to look like the NYT will, in fact, be prosecuted, their own protestations of some extraordinary powers notwithstanding:
BY JOHN C. EASTMAN Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Editor's note: This was originally delivered as prepared remarks to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on May 26, 2006.
The constitutionality of protecting intelligence gathering and other operational military secrets in time of war is therefore beyond dispute, and the institutional press is no more permitted to ignore the legal restrictions imposed by the Espionage Act on the publication and other dissemination of such classified information than are ordinary citizens. Neither is it exempt from prosecution for willful violations of that Act. Justice Goldberg famously noted in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez that our Constitution "is not a suicide pact,"36 and the sentiment is particularly apropos for the issues under consideration today. The simple fact is that the asymmetric nature of the current war against international terrorist organizations makes intelligence gathering the central and most critical front in the war. Not only must the executive branch aggressively pursue every legal means of gathering intelligence at its disposal, it must be equally aggressive in protecting the classified methods that it is using in that effort if it is to succeed in preventing future attacks on our homeland and fellow citizens such as those we witnessed on that fateful day in September nearly five years ago.
Every citizen, including--particularly including--those employed with major media organs have a responsibility to prevent ongoing operational secrets from falling into the hands of our enemies by complying with the law regarding classified information. It is one of those "basic and simple duties" of citizenship that rests equally "on taxi drivers, Justices, and the New York Times." We may never know how great the damage to our national security the recent disclosures of classified, highly-sensitive intelligence-gathering information have caused, but with the seriousness of the threat to our lives and liberty posed by terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, it is certainly the right, and may well be the duty, of the executive to prosecute those responsible for them.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008511.
Posted by pontificus at 06/15/2006 @ 4:28pm
Ponti -
All because Prof. Eastman thinks so? That's a hell of a lot of clout.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 5:06pm
Ponti -
Prosecuting reporters under the Espionage Act is a dangerous precedent. You won't like it so much when we have a Democratic administration.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 5:13pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/15/2006 @ 5:13pm
Prosecuting reporters under the Espionage Act is a dangerous precedent. You won't like it so much when we have a Democratic administration.
Really? What cases can you think of where conservative reporters or conservative publications have published classified information?
Posted by pontificus at 06/15/2006 @ 6:19pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/15/2006 @ 5:06pm
All because Prof. Eastman thinks so? That's a hell of a lot of clout.
I believe we are a nation of laws, not of men. As such, it is the power of Prof. Eastman's argument that is most relevant, not how much 'clout' he has.
Prosecuting reporters under the Espionage Act is a dangerous precedent. You won't like it so much when we have a Democratic administration.
I'm sure I wouldn't. I have no doubt that Democrats would use it to partisan advantage, much like the Clinton Administration used the IRS to intimidate its political adversaries. But considering the basic contempt that leftists have for most American institutions and concepts of equality under the law, abuse of the Espionage Act is only one of many abuses we have to fear if a Democratic Administration comes to power.
Posted by pontificus at 06/15/2006 @ 6:37pm
Pontificus - My point was that the professor's opinion makes you think "it is starting to look like the NYT is going to be prosecuted," not that he is not worthy of having an argumnet. I am tired of arguing with you. The last paragraph in your 6:37 post was so over the top and ridiculous. There is no point discussing issues with someone as jaded as you. You are just trying to pick a fight.
By the way, is Robert Novak conservative enough for you?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 9:20pm
But considering the basic contempt that leftists have for most American institutions and concepts of equality under the law, abuse of the Espionage Act is only one of many abuses we have to fear if a Democratic Administration comes to power.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/15/2006 @ 6:37pm
You guys understand that my favorite roman is correct on this point
leftists do have a basic contempt for American institutions and equality under the law,
as do the tighty righies.
the great liberal center however, is the standard bearer for American institutions and equalty under the law.
hold you heads up high my fellow liberals. You are gods children. Through your good works you are the bedrock of liberal democracy...
god's mechanism or freedom and liberty on this good earth.
Posted by Will C. at 06/16/2006 @ 12:38am
correction... of freedom
Posted by Will C. at 06/16/2006 @ 12:39am
oops
hail nero
burn baby burn
Posted by Will C. at 06/16/2006 @ 12:43am
You are gods children. Through your good works you are the bedrock of liberal democracy...
god's mechanism or freedom and liberty on this good earth.
Posted by WILL C. 06/16/2006 @ 12:38am | ignore this person
Are you being sarcastic and trying to sound like a "Left" Pat Robertson?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2006 @ 09:51am
Are you being sarcastic and trying to sound like a "Left" Pat Robertson?!?!?
Posted by MASK 06/16/2006 @ 09:51am
I don't believe I called for the murder of anyone.
Unless you are simply implying that that men of faith and good conscience in the great liberal center of America actually do carry the commandments in their hearts.
(eliminating the need for all those ugly graven images you hamsters want to erect everywhere)
Posted by Will C. at 06/16/2006 @ 9:36pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/15/2006 @ 9:20pm
Pontificus - My point was that the professor's opinion makes you think "it is starting to look like the NYT is going to be prosecuted," not that he is not worthy of having an argumnet. I am tired of arguing with you. The last paragraph in your 6:37 post was so over the top and ridiculous. There is no point discussing issues with someone as jaded as you. You are just trying to pick a fight.
It's true, I do seem over the top at times, even to myself. But as I reflect on this, I have a hard time feeling too bad about it. Why?
Because as I read the comments on this site, there are so many things that a true believer in liberal democracy should find very disturbing. We have many posters here expressing, if not outright admiration for a common third world thug like Hugo Chavez, then certainly a huge amount of tolerance, tolerance that they would never show to a thug who doesn't pretend he's a socialist. All the while, these laughable 'intellectual elite' are complaining about the almost entirely fanciful 'fascism' of George Bush. We've got former Presidents for God's sake, kowtowing to third world slavemasters like Fidel Castro, all with the acquiescence, if not outright approbation of the left. We've got people crying about Augusto Pinochet, all the while with not a whimper about Kim Jong Il or any number of similar outrages in leftist societies, past and present.
So yes, if I seem over the top, perhaps you are right. But then again, so might I be.
Posted by pontificus at 06/17/2006 @ 06:12am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/17/2006 @ 06:12am
The great liberal center of America went head to head with the commies for forty years. Liberal congresses raised the armies that fought the cold war. Liberal presidents never backed down.
Let's contrast that to what conservatives did the second they started running the show.
Conservatives advocated and passed a set of laws that allowed for the sale of the very same American jobs and businesses to the very same commies that the liberals fought against for oh so long.
Face it boy, you hamsters couldn't sell out fast enough
Posted by Will C. at 06/17/2006 @ 09:22am
oh
and did I mention that when the hamster congress was running the show after 94, two entire US divisions reported in not ready for duty.
and when a hamster president was handed a PDB in 2001 that said plain as day that our enemies were going to attack us...
his sorry ass went on vacation
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Posted by Will C. at 06/17/2006 @ 09:25am
Hail Nero!
Burn Baby Burn
Posted by Will C. at 06/17/2006 @ 09:26am
Party of Rapist Proud to be Godless
I thought I'd put off that column on ethanol subsidies I'd been planning to write this week and instead address the topic that has so riveted the nation -- the hot new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism."
First of all, I'm getting a little fed up with people trying to make money off my book. Worthless little cable TV shows with teeny-tiny audiences, ridiculous legislators and tabloid newspapers are all trying to make a name for themselves off the profundity of "Godless."
Second, let's pause for a moment to observe that two facts are now universally accepted: Liberals are godless and Hillary's husband is a rapist.
My book makes a stark assertion: Liberalism is a godless religion. Hello! Anyone there? I've leapt beyond calling you traitors and am now calling you GODLESS. Apparently, everybody's cool with that. The fact that liberals are godless is not even a controversial point anymore.
In addition to the consensus position that liberals are godless, no one has made a peep about that swipe I took at Hillary, proposing that she have a chat with her husband before accusing others of being "mean" to women in light of Juanita Broaddrick's charge that Bill Clinton raped her. Hillary beat a hasty retreat on her chubby little legs and is now hiding behind Rahm "Don't Touch My Tutu" Emanuel.
Yes, the Democrats' pit bull, Rahm Emanuel, is a former ballerina. And they wonder why the concerted effort of the MSM (as we call the mainstream media) and the Democratic Party can't lay a finger on me. A ballerina. Hey, if the padded, silky shoe fits ...
The establishment's current obsession with me is the MSM's last stand. They've deployed the whole lineup of yesterday's power brokers against me, and all they've accomplished is to make my book the No. 1 book in the country. In other words, their efforts to defeat me have just created more people like me. Now who's stuck in an unwinnable quagmire, losers?
Take note, conservatives: No American need ever fear the liberal establishment again. It's all over but the sobbing.
Back when there were only three TV stations and no Internet, talk radio or Fox News, it used to be so easy for the MSM to destroy reputations -- Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Robert Bork, Dan Quayle, Oliver North, Clarence Thomas, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Paula Jones and Linda Tripp, to name a few of the MSM's prey.
Liberals aren't having so much fun now that the rabbit has the gun.
Last Wednesday, Brian Williams began the "NBC Nightly News" -- currently watched exclusively by old ladies in nursing homes -- with a report on "civility" in America, which has apparently been horribly despoiled by my book. Williams complained that the "explosion in our media, our deafening national noise level and our changing mores have made this a much different era in America than the one our parents grew up in."
Oh, the civility of having only three TV stations back in our parents' day! It was even more civil in the Soviet Union where there was only one TV station.
In precisely five minutes on the Media Research Center's Web site, I turned up some random examples of the sort of civility we got from the MSM before the alternative media allowed conservatives to be heard, too. These are all-new quotes I've never even seen before. There are about a hundred more in my book "Slander."
-- On Ronald Reagan: "I predict historians are going to be totally baffled by how the American people fell in love with this man (Ronald Reagan) and followed him the way we did."-- CBS News White House reporter Lesley Stahl on NBC's "Later With Bob Costas," Jan. 11, 1989
-- On Pat Buchanan: "On the road I travel to the mall in Wheaton, Md., two white men severely beat two black women Tuesday. One was doused with lighter fluid, and her attacker tried to set her afire. Both men cursed the women for being black. I couldn't help but shudder: That could have been me. This heinous act happened only hours after Pat Buchanan voters gave him 30 percent of the vote in the Maryland GOP presidential primary." -- USA Today columnist and former "Inquiry" page editor Barbara Reynolds, March 6, 1992
-- On Lee Atwater: "(Lee Atwater) was a scoundrel, one of the darkest figures to dominate our recent politics, a man with a comprehensively cynical view of his fellow creatures. ... He made it in the most improbable way, learning to dress at Brooks Brothers and keep his funky white trash wickedness too. ... In running campaigns that played on racial divisions, he was something worse than a bigot; he was a man who pretended to be a bigot in hope that it would sell." -- Washington Post op-ed by reporter Marjorie Williams, March 30, 1991
-- On Newt Gingrich: "So how do you put an end to what Jim Wright called 'mindless cannibalism'? Do you put a muzzle on Newt Gingrich?" -- "CBS This Morning" co-host Kathleen Sullivan, June 1, 1989
Ah, the civility of the old media! Sadly for the MSM, the Silent Majority is silent no more.
THE GREAT ANN COULTER SHOVING IT UP YOUR LIBERAL ASSES LIKE NO ONE ELSE CAN
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/17/2006 @ 3:26pm
so traitor
can I call you traitor?
so traitor
my boy jesus was a liberal.
We're just trying to keep the walk in the family
(but please feel free to continue talking)
Posted by Will C. at 06/17/2006 @ 10:25pm
Posted by TRAITORLIBZ 06/17/2006 @ 3:26pm
She is a great lady.
Posted by pontificus at 06/18/2006 @ 8:17pm
Posted by WILL C. 06/17/2006 @ 09:22am
The great liberal center of America went head to head with the commies for forty years. Liberal congresses raised the armies that fought the cold war. Liberal presidents never backed down.
That's true, if you count the start of the 40 years as 1923, and ending in 1963. Since then, the only thing liberal congresses have been doing is cutting defense, saying defense isn't necessary, spending gazillions of dollars on social programs that produce little, and combing that yellow streak down their backs.
Let's contrast that to what conservatives did the second they started running the show.
That would be 1980, when we finally got a President with a spine.
Conservatives advocated and passed a set of laws that allowed for the sale of the very same American jobs and businesses to the very same commies that the liberals fought against for oh so long.
Okay, I have absolutely no idea what this means.
Will, I grew up during the Presidency of James Earl Carter. What I remember from him made me a Republican for life, as it did with every other person with sense in America. I'd love to give you the full scoop on the shape Mr. Carter left this country in, but let's just say it was not good. And the worst thing is, everything that Jimmy Carter stood for, is what the Democrats still stand for. Cut and run, high taxes, blame-america-first-for-everthing, protectionism, you name a bad idea, the Democrats are 110 percent for it.
Posted by pontificus at 06/18/2006 @ 8:25pm
That's true, if you count the start of the 40 years as 1923, and ending in 1963. Since then, the only thing liberal congresses have been doing is cutting defense, saying defense isn't necessary, spending gazillions of dollars on social programs that produce little, and combing that yellow streak down their backs.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/18/2006 @ 8:25pm
Liberal congresses passed the apropriations for R & D into most of our current weapons systems during the carter administration. libeeral Congresses then passed the appropriations for the deployment of those systems during the Reagan administration. Constrast that to the hamster congress that came into power in 95 which flubbed military appropritions so badly that in 2000 two whole US divisions reported in not ready for duty sir.
were still not sure whether incompetence is an inbred thing with you hamsters or if it's a by product of the commie hamster fringe movement (with dash of evangelic thrown in for good measure) that is intent of destroying liberal democracy, freedom...
liberty
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 9:34pm
That would be 1980, when we finally got a President with a spine.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/18/2006 @ 8:25pm
My Boy Jimmy had a spine too
(we have X-rays to prove it)
but what he didn't have was a thirst for Blood.
and he was't slowly losing his mind. It's important for a president not to be slowly losing his mind you know. When your slowly losing your mind you do things like reward the guys who took a bunch of your countrymen hostage for 444 days by selling them American weapons systems
but then you can always count on conservatives to sell out to Americas enemies
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 9:41pm
Okay, I have absolutely no idea what this means.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/18/2006 @ 8:25pm
The power of denial: a cornerstone of all hamster thinking.
What it means is you lied to us. (it's ironic but we've grown quite accustomed to it) You lied to us when you said that free trade agreements would open up the markets of foreign countries for American goods.
but what you really intended to do was sell American factories and jobs to those foreign countries, have them make the stuff we used to make, and then ship it back over here for sale...
to us
had you told us what you intended to do we never would have agreed to the free trade bills in congress.
and to add insult to injury. You sold our factories and our jobs to commie china
but then you can always count conservative to sell out to Americas enemies
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 9:50pm
Cut and run, high taxes, blame-america-first-for-everthing, protectionism,
Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/18/2006 @ 8:25pm
Perhaps you could give an example of the policies that carter championed that would illustrate how carter stood for these things.
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 9:53pm
you did grow up during his presidency after all
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 9:53pm
Hail Nero!
Burn baby burn
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 9:53pm
Cut and run, high taxes, blame-america-first-for-everthing, protectionism,
Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/18/2006 @ 8:25pm
Perhaps you could give an example of the policies that carter championed that would illustrate how carter stood for these things.
Posted by WILL C. 06/18/2006 @ 9:53pm
Sorry, WILL, no examples will be forthcoming. You see, like most conservatives, PONTI deals only in lies and slander. To actually do research, and come up with facts to support his lies, well, you are just asking too much, don't you know?
Why are you so unreasonable, WILL? After all, PONTI has told you a lie. You are supposed to just accept it as true. At least, that's what PONTI does when Bush and Cheney tell him lies. Can't you do it too?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/19/2006 @ 2:27pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/19/2006 @ 2:27pm
the hamsters lie
it's the only thing they are truly good at
Posted by Will C. at 06/19/2006 @ 10:29pm
Will:
http://www.webhamster.com/
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/20/2006 @ 7:30pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/20/2006 @ 7:30pm
Ha Ha Ha Ha
:)
Posted by Will C. at 06/20/2006 @ 11:58pm
GODLESS' CAUSES LIBERALS TO PRAY ... FOR A BOOK BURNING June 21, 2006
I dedicate this column to John Murtha, the reason soldiers invented fragging.
In response to the arguments of my opponents, I say: Waaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo hoo!
If you're upset about what I said about the Witches of East Brunswick, try turning the page. Surely, I must have offended more than those four harpies. Wait 'til you get a load of what I say about liberals in the rest of the book! You haven't seen the half of it.
For snarling victims, my book is Christmas in July. Hey -- where's Max the grenade-dropper? Let's keep this diaper-fest going all summer.
How about these pungent points:
-- No liberal cause is defended with more dishonesty than abortion. No matter what else they pretend to care about from time to time -- undermining national security, aiding terrorists, oppressing the middle class, freeing violent criminals -- the single most important item on the Democrats' agenda is abortion. Indeed, abortion is the one issue the Democratic Party is willing to go to war over -- except in the Muslim world, which is jam-packed with prohibitions on abortion, but going to war against a Muslim nation might also serve America's national security objectives. Liberals don't care about women. They care about destroying human life. To them, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate.
-- Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court was known for shouting obscenities from the bench and identifying undercover policemen in open court. Bill Clinton nominated Massiah-Jackson to be a federal district court judge in 1997. Among other notable rulings, Judge Massiah-Jackson sentenced the brutal rapist of a 10-year-old girl to the statutory minimum and apologized to the rapist, saying: "I just don't think the five to 10 years is appropriate in this case even assuming you were found guilty." She refused to allow the district attorney to present a pre-sentence report or victim impact statement, saying: "What would be the point of that?" After his release, the defendant was rearrested for raping a 9-year-old boy.
Massiah-Jackson wasn't some random nut nominated by Clinton by accident, likeJanet Reno or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a liberal heroine. The New York Times was in high dudgeon when Massiah-Jackson withdrew -- and not because Massiah-Jackson had sneered atAIDS victims and rape victims ... The Times was in a snit because of the "judicial mugging" the Senate had put her through. Massiah-Jackson, the Times said, "now returns to the state bench, battered but with her honor intact. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Senate."
-- Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ ("The Bell Curve") because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God's image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don't think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what's the point? After Hitler carried the secularists' philosophy to its grisly conclusion, liberals are terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people -- especially racial groups. It's difficult to have a simple conversation -- much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry -- when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.
-- While gays were being decimated by the AIDS virus, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was more interested in not "stigmatizing" them than in saving their lives. See, where I come from, being dead also carries a certain type of stigma. Instead of distributing condoms in gay bars and at productions of the play "Rent," where they might have done some good, Koop insisted on distributing condoms in kindergarten classes, in order to emphasize the point that AIDS does not discriminate, which it does.
In 1987, New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd -- before she was elevated to the cartoon pages -- wrote a heroic portrait of the man. Dr. Koop, she said "fiercely wants to strip AIDS of its stigma," and for that reason, he talks "about making an animated educational video that would feature two condoms 'with little eyes on them' chatting, and about the need for 'gentle, nonmystifying' sex education for students, starting in kindergarten." I would pay quite a bit of money to hear someone describe anal sex -- oh hell, make it any kind of sodomy -- to a 5-year-old in a gentle, nonmystifying way.
Finally, a word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can.
The Great Ann Coulter
Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 3:38pm
I thought Ibble's post was strange.
Posted by HMAN23 06/22/2006 @ 11:54pm |
I HATE TO USE CAPSLOCK AND APOLOGIZE TO ALL THOSE WHO ARE UNDERSTANDABLY OFFENDED BY SUCH BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ALL AWARE OF A CERTAIN FACT...
HMAN - PERHAPS YOU WERE REFERRING TO ME, BUT NOTICE THAT I HAVE SPAWNED AN ADMIRER/HATER (NOT SURE YET) WHO DOES NOT SHARE MY STERLINGLY PERFECT OPINIONS AND VIEWS..
NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE...
IBBLEBLIBBLE THAT IS ME
IBBLEDRIBBLE THAT IS SOMEONE ELSE
thank you and have a nice day :)
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/23/2006 @ 08:23am
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/23/2006 @ 08:29am
Shhhh... Do you hear that? It's a quiet clicking sound that's chipping away at our liberties while at the same time moving this country towards a dearth of leadership that, I believe, is unprecedented in this country's history. Oh wait! I forgot about Dubya's mentor from afar: Dick Nixon.
Posted by bevku at 06/23/2006 @ 2:06pm
Today's puzzler - see if you can guess...who said this.
...the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy. Their sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal dates, without adequate stability, is an invitation to failure. The hard work of rebuilding Iraq must not be dictated by the schedule of the next American election.
I have called for the administration to transfer sovereignty, and they must transfer it to the Iraqi people as quickly as circumstances permit. But it would be a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle to speed up the process simply to lay the groundwork for a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops. That could risk the hijacking of Iraq by terrorist groups and former Ba'athists.
Posted by pontificus at 06/23/2006 @ 4:10pm