President Bush has assured the nation, most recently on June 10, 2004, that he would fire anyone in the White House who had leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Now that top presidential aide and “Bush’s brain” Karl Rove has been confirmed as one of the leakers, will Bush carry through on his pledge?
Bush firing longtime strategist Rove is inconceivable, says one blog wag. That “would be like Charlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen.”
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
107 Comments
All politics aside, two thoughts come to mind:
1. If you want people to beleive you (about anything) in the future you must carry out your prior “threats.”
2. Illegal or not does not matter here. It’s the appearance of improper action/motive that is the problem.
Many are making this into a political issue, rightly or wrongly, but there are actually bigger issues in this one.
Have I missed something?
I dont recall Rove ever being identified as leaking the name of the CIA agent.
What was talked about is still under scrutiny.
If Karl Rove ran over the neighbors dog on his way to work the Democrats would be calling for him to be fired.
Right. IF he was the leaker, he should be fired. I personally think he’s an icehearted monster, but thaty;s just my opinion. But IF we find out that he is the leaker, the administration should follow through on its pledge.I beleive the article says “confirmed”. That, to me, means proven.
I’m slightly sickened by the last comment. Hitting a dog on the way to work (I’m presuming accidently) is no comparison for leaking the name of a CIA agent and putting her and her family in grave danger.
Unfortunately, Rove is Bush’s brain, so justice won’t happen in this lifetime.
I don’t know that Plame/Wilson’s family was in danger because of the outing, but rather those assets/resources she may have been developing in other countries might be in danger. The far left claims that a certain number of such folk have been killed because of this leak. It is hard for me to see how that could be known.
No, we aren’t claiming that people have been killed. But it was a nasty thing to do, to put someone in danger like that. Lower than low.
Admit it, if Rove was a Dem, you’d be screaming for blood. But since he’s such a “good christian conservative”, you’ll excuse anything he does…
Nathan, I know it’s difficult, but don’t be such a jerk-off.
What Rove said was that the wife of Joseph Wilson was a CIA operative. If I say, ‘the President of the United States is a lying, no good, low down, snake in the grass,’ you know who I mean. I don’t have to use his name.
Wingnuts, don’t try to play the technicality game. You just look stupider than you already are.
And Steven, the Special Prosecutor is going after Rove for possibly committing a felony, regardless of the ‘lack’ of consequences. You can’t argue that if I do something inherently wrong but no negative results follow, that what I did wasn’t inherently wrong.
At best, Rove is guilty of negligence; at worst, malice. But regardless, Bush has to fire him, like he said he would. A leaker is a leaker.
Is Bush II’s promise to fire whoever leaked the information going to turn into Bush I’s ‘read my lips: no new taxes’ pledge?
Again,
I could be wrong, but I have yet to see “confirmed” evidence showing the Rove did leak the name of the agent.
It is “confirmed” they talked, but not as to what the details were.
My comment was not a comparison of the alleged crime to running over a dog, but of the response of the liberals and democrats.
Personally, I hope the administration fights tooth and nail to save Rove. It only makes them look bad and it demonstrates what a bunch of unethical loosers we have in the whitehouse. It’ll make a great issue in the 2006 elections, along with DeLay and Cunningham.
Nathan,
In your universe, what counts as ‘confirmed’?
CF,
Your in my universe too, so you tell me.
No, I won’t. If you’re going to insist that something does or doesn’t count as evidence, then you have to be explicit about your criteria. What makes something ‘confirmed?’
You play this game all the time, and I’m calling you on it. What level of ‘confirmation’ would you require to concede that Karl Rove revealed the identity of Valerie Plame to a reporter?
Oh, how about the special prosecutor filing federal charges of treason aginst Rove? Would that do it? $5.00 says by X-Mas.
It’s hard to believe that Plame was acting in any useful capacity in her job as a WMD inteligence official. Weren’t we all embarrassed by the lack of decent information about WMD from her office? If she was undercover, it was only under the covers in her bedroom.
I mean, this gal is in Who’sWho, was mentioned by name as a CIA “official” in the NYT and WAPO before Novak ever wrote his article, has a listed phone number, and has two young twin boys, for crying out loud. We’re not talking James Bond here.
And if we are, why does she keep advertising herself in Vanity Fair when the CIA says she has the same job with the same duties as before? No, she’s not any kind of undercover agent.
The Senate intelligence investigation did find a memo from Plame to her boss recommending Wilson for the boondogle to Niger. That’s her idea of undercover work?
True enough to her “undercover” position, one only has to look around to find that her work at the CIA was the worst kept secret in Washington. Nobody would have expected something so public from an “undercover” agent.
So Rove told reporters that the Wilson story was not good work, was politically motivated, and was a nice piece of nepotism engineered by his wife.
Big deal. The crazies are out jousting at windmills again.
Rove should have his day in court before being convicted in the public forum. He should not be drawing a salary while that process proceeds.
Nice Wingnut spin, Dude1. But it’s a couple of days old on the Freeper site.
You might want to update: the new meme on Fox is that Rove was just trying to warn Matt Cooper so that he didn’t misattribute the leak to Cheney.
Is there anything Wingnuts won’t say to get themselves out of a jam? The intensity of their spin belies Dude1’s studied, casual indifference.
Right, it’s all been said before, months ago, not days FYI; and it’s true. But the Bush haters keep jousting at the same old windmills.
It’s a non story about a non spy who got her husband a nice boondoggle to lie about something he knew nothing about.
Is there anything the loony left won’t say to create a false controversy? The intensity of their spin belies CF’s studied, casual indifference.
Your post really angers me, Dud.
You can’t refute the simple fact that Bush and his minions engaged in HIGH TREASON by exposing a CIA agent and all her contacts, ruining her 20 years of gov’t service, destroying her long term cover and contacts in the war on terror.
So you minimize it by saying she wasn’t valuable anyway. WTH do you know about it? You don’t know the first thing about it . . . you don’t have security clearance . . . you don’t have any real knowledge of what she did or didn’t do in her 20 year career.
But in your arrogance you pass judgement on her–you, who hasn’t done one iota as much to protect this country as she has done.
Do you FReepers even think about what you post or are you so busy praying to your action figure Bush doll that you’ve lost the ability of rational thought?
Bush said he’d fire anybody involved in the leak. What’s the hold up? Looks to me like Rove is up to his eyes in this mess. Why does he still have a job?
Exactly right, Dagett.
For those that still need “proof” that it was Rove, here’s Matt Cooper’s interview after his Grand Jury testimony–
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000978837
It was Rove, gosh darn it, and you can spin this thing like a tornado but Rove has committed a felony.
If Bush had an ounce of integrity he would fire Rove at once.
But Mr. “I want to restore honor and dignity to the White House” doesn’t work that way.
He’ll try to slime and weasle his way out, as usual. And this time, it looks like the Teflon Don is going to get stuck.
Tara C:”Admit it, if Rove was a Dem, you’d be screaming for blood. But since he’s such a “good christian conservative”, you’ll excuse anything he does…”
I don’t know if this was directed at me, but I would not be sceaming at anyone, but when the National Democratic Committee showed up on my caller-ID I would answer the phone and get out my credit card. Love him, or hate him – his success (packaging GW Bush as a viable candidate) is a truely remarkable feat given the raw material he had to work with.
CF:”And Steven, the Special Prosecutor is going after Rove for possibly committing a felony, regardless of the ‘lack’ of consequences. You can’t argue that if I do something inherently wrong but no negative results follow, that what I did wasn’t inherently wrong.”
I don’t think I was making an argument about a lack of consequences. I was troubled to see claims of 80 deaths or so attributable to the leak on a liberal blog. I just don’t see how any of us could know that — maybe the CIA knows this, but I bet they won’t be sharing any figures with us civilians (if there are any, even).
The law involved in Plame case seems to have a pretty high standard. It is questionable to me if Rove will be indicted given what we know so far. He was definitely unethical, but when did that ever result in sanctions of any kind from this White House?
Steven, Bush said he’d fire anybody involved. Now Republicans pride themselves on what an honorable man Bush is. You can talk all you want about who did it affect and how high the bar is on the law in question, but the fact remains, Bush said a couple of times that he’d fire anybody involved. Rove still has a job. I’d say that if Bush doesn’t fire him, he’s a liar.
Dagett:I am not a Bush defender and I do not think that your claim that GW is a liar is a first. I also predict that unless Rove is indicted, he will stay. I read that Bush parsed his language so that he has enough wiggle room to get out of the pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak (c.f., today’s Washington Post). I think the story is interesting, and like many, I will be following it.
Steven, I didn’t say you were a Bush supporter, sorry if I gave you that impression, and I didn’t say Bush is a liar (at least not in this particular post, heh, heh). What I said was, if he doesn’t follow through on his word, he’s a liar. I think He’s going to try real hard to get out of this, but the harder he tries, the worse he’s going to look. Of course the hard-core right wing is going to say and do anything they can to claim that’s not really what he said, but Bush isn’t as popular as he used to be and I still believe there are a lot of people in the center that will be turned off if he tries to worm his way out of this one. I think the Democrats are doing a fair job of painting the GOP as ethically challenged, and this will just add fuel to the fire.
Dagett:I hope you’re right; we’ll see.
Please, Tricia, let me have this one —
Mr. Twister, you left-wingers are so predictable.
Let’s look at your thoughtful critique of my points.
1. “his minions” Ad hominem2. “HIGH TREASON” Over-generalization, unsubstantiated, and unprovable. You ignore the refutation implicit in the FACT that Plame was a desk jockey, not an undercover spy. You ignore the fact that everybody knew who she was and what she did, anyway. You just ignore those facts and claim treason anyway.3. “you minimize it by saying she wasn’t valuable.” No, actually, I dismiss it, especially given her WMD department’s incompetence on the subject of WMD. This is no small thing. Her little group badly missed the extent and progress of the Islamic bomb project that Khadafi eagerly divulged ONLY after watching Saddam crawl out of a spider hole. Don’t give me any of your blather about her valuable service. It was not, and I don’t need a security clearance to know that she collected pay for 20 years, during which time the Islamicists were building an A-bomb under her nose – but she had no clue of the extent of it. North Korea developed its bomb under her nose, too. Another big surprise.4. “you, who hasn’t done one iota as much to protect this country” Red herring. All you know is that I’m not as big a publicity hound as she or her husband. I gave many years to my country, but I was not a big man in the Kerry campaign, like Wilson was.5. “Do you FReepers…” OK, I’ll bite, what is a FReeper? Anyway, it sounds like Ad hominem and Guilt by Association.6. “Do you…ever think…” Ad hominem.7. “praying to you action figure Bush doll…” Would this fine piece of elegant rhetoric be a good sign of your maturity level? I think so. Most definitely.8. “you’ve lost the ability of rational thought?” Over-generalization, Ad hominem and Non sequitur.
Michael Moore, you have taught your minions well.
Dude1,
I was actually thinking about going through his post like you did ealier, but I just didnt have the desire…
Thank you.
Hence the reason why I said I would be watching him after he did the same thing earlier.
Rome burns and the Dem fever swamp fiddles.
Why is Judith Miller still keeping her source quite? Their is a waiver from her source to let the name out, just like Rove did with Matt Cooper.
She is keeping quite, because she has another source that is not Karl Rove. People are speculating that Joseph Wilson himself is the one that ratted his own wife out to Miller.
Ouch!
Heh, nice try, Dud. But a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
You have no idea what the h… you’re talking about.
You have no clue what Valerie Plame’s real job was, what contacts she was cultivating, what her successes or her failings were.
How do I know this? Because you’re not a CIA agent and she was.
I challenge you to find one fact that can be proven true or false that Bush has said publicly that was proven true.
C’mon, big shot. One simple fact.
Try it.
And btw, Dud, if “everybody knew,” then why is the special prosecutor making such a federal case out of this?
So I guess you know more than the special prosecutor too. You know the secret inner workings of the CIA. You know the unstated motives of Wilson. (It couldn’t be that the man was just GASP telling the truth.)You know more than anyone involved in this investigation.
Sreee! I am loving this story. It’s stuff like this that makes kids want to read the paper…I have decided to flip flop on my opinion. I agree with Daggett, and think the administration should so everything in their power to spin this and keep Rove. Surely the American public is smart enough to see through this, and think “Hmmmm…maybe there’s something wrong with this administration”…Also, Dude, I’m interested in knowing where you got your source that Plame was a “desk jockey”…surely not a right wing blog? Because I would never post “facts” from MoveOn or Michael Moore or any liberal blog. It could damage my cred.
I’m with you Tara. Let’s sign a petition to NOT FIRE Rove.
The press has been lied to so many times by this administration, but now it’s payback time.
This is a lie they can’t pawn off as “protecting national security” like the Weapons of Mass Destruction fiasco and the “we’ve got to fight them there, so we don’t fight them here” pretzel logic.
Keep Rove and the pressure to finally tell the truth stays on.
This is going to drag Bush and his whole party down with him.
For heaven’s sake, DON’T FIRE ROVE!
Dude1–
Since you’re so critical of the CIA WMD office, what would you say to a Vice-President who, when told by the Hart-Rudman committee that terrorism was our biggest threat, immediately took control of that committee but then NEVER CALLED A MEETING ON IT for nine months before 9-11?
What would you call a president who receieved a CIA briefing with the headline “Al Qaeda determined to strike in the US” emblazoned across the top exactly one month before the 9-11 attacks who apparently did nothing?
No reason to let that interfere with his month long vacation . . .
Incompetent is the word that comes to mind.
If you needed a memo to know that “Al Qaeda determined to strike in the US”, then you are already an incompetent person.
The administration already knew “Al Qaeda determined to strike in the US”, they had no idea how or where. The important things to stopping it which the memo didn’t say.
Every single day they are told that terrorist are determined to strike America.
Please tell me what it is Bush should have done if/when he would have seen that memo?
Oh, so Dude wants to play Logic 101? Fine. Let’s play.
My comments are in boldface type, bracketed.
“It’s hard to believe that Plame was acting in any useful capacity in her job as a WMD inteligence official. [RED HERRING: THE ISSUE IS KARL ROVE'S LEAKING OF VALERIE PLAME'S IDENTITY, NOT VALERIE PLAME'S JOB PERFORMANCE] Weren’t we all embarrassed by the lack of decent information about WMD from her office? [COMPLEX QUESTION] If she was undercover, it was only under the covers in her bedroom. [SEXIST AD HOMINEM]
I mean, this gal is in Who’sWho, was mentioned by name as a CIA “official” in the NYT and WAPO before Novak ever wrote his article, has a listed phone number, and has two young twin boys, for crying out loud [RED HERRING. DOES IT LIST HER IN THE PHONE BOOK AS A CIA AGENT?]. We’re not talking James Bond here.
And if we are, why does she keep advertising herself in Vanity Fair when the CIA says she has the same job with the same duties as before? No, she’s not any kind of undercover agent. [WEASEL WORD: 'UNDERCOVER.' THE FACT THAT SHE HAS A PUBLIC PERSONA DOESN'T CONTRADICT HER STANDING AS A COVERT AGENT]
The Senate intelligence investigation did find a memo from Plame to her boss recommending Wilson for the boondogle to Niger. That’s her idea of undercover work?[RED HERRING: ROVE'S ACTIONS ARE THE ISSUE. DID HE, OR DID HE NOT, DISCLOSE THE NAME OF A COVERT OPERATIVE TO A REPORTER?]
True enough to her “undercover” position, one only has to look around to find that her work at the CIA was the worst kept secret in Washington. Nobody would have expected something so public from an “undercover” agent. [OBSCURE: WHAT'S YOUR POINT, AND WHERE'S YOUR DOCUMENTATION?]
So Rove told reporters that the Wilson story was not good work, was politically motivated, and was a nice piece of nepotism engineered by his wife. [AND, THAT HIS WIFE WAS A COVERT CIA OPERATIVE. NICE OF YOU TO LEAVE THAT OUT]
Big deal. The crazies are out jousting at windmills again. [AD HOMINEM]
Oh, and Nathan is a coward and a punk. C’mon out and fight, wuss.
Thanks for getting my back there, CF. His post was a parody of one I posted on another thread. That’s why it was better than what he usually posts–he was following my organization.
Anyway this is from the latest Washington Post–
“The leak of a CIA operative’s name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure . . .”Oh, man, what left-wing lunatic made such a ridiculous claim. “Everybody knows she’s just a desk jockey,” right. Must be one of those lying LIBERALS from the Nation or The American Prospect . . . wait . . . no, here’s the rest of the quote–
“. . .Bush administration officials said yesterday.”
Dude1, you need to call up those Bush administration people and set them straight, man. Tell them the real truth about Valerie Plame so they don’t keep making erroneous statements that hurt Rove to the national media.
Spin, Spin, Spin.Man’ I’d hate to be a conservative right now (who am I kidding…I’d hate to be a conservative anytime). You appoligists need to listen to yourselves. You’re defending a little creep that “gave up” a CIA agent for political revenge. No matter how you spin it, it’s wrong. It’s unethical. And it’s illegal. You don’t know how much damage it caused. If outing Plame was ok, why should it be wrong to out any CIA agent? After all, it’s only a matter of degree. You can split hairs and parse words all you want. Bush said he’d fire anybody involved. I think this just demonstrates how morally and ethically challenged Republicans are. They seem to be able to create their own reality.No matter how many lies you tell to support Bush, what Rove did was WRONG. And he needs to pay for it.Is there any republican here that would out a CIA agent? Why not? Because you know it’s WRONG.
Good stuff. The truth may hurt (Republicans), but it will set you (Democrats) free.
And folks, let’s keep our eye on the ball: what this is all REALLY about is the White House’s PR campaign run-up to sell the Iraq War, on false pretenses, to the American public. It ties into the Downing Street Memos as well.
Niger is a part, but only a part, of the whole story. The fuller story that’s coming out involves Karen Hughes, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Dan Bartlett, and the White House Office of Global Communications, and how it was used to sell the war and silence opponents. That’s what has the White House REALLY spooked.
All together: if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.
Oh, and Social Security legislation appears dead for the year.
To Twister, Tara, and all members of the angry anti-Bush cabal,Somehow your bald assertion that Rove has committed high treason is proven beyond a doubt by your perch inside Rove’s head; but my comments, which are based on good, published information are somehow not credible. You made the assertion about treason. You prove it. And don’t go quoting the puppet media. Tara wouldn’t like that.
Judith Miller is at the center of this because she did commit treason in a previous investigation conducted by Fitzgerald. So as not to offend Tara, I will even quote the WAPO:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51840-2005Feb24.html
“On Dec. 3, 2001, Times reporter Judith Miller telephoned officials with the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Texas-based charity accused of being a front for Palestinian terrorists, and asked for a comment about what she said was the government’s probable crackdown on the group. U.S. officials said this conversation and Miller’s article on the subject in the Times on Dec. 4 increased the likelihood that the foundation destroyed or hid records before a hastily organized raid by agents that day.”
Her wilfull tipoff to a seditious group is more treasonous than anything Rove is accused of.
Fitzgerald appears to be almost certain that the “other” source that Miller is protecting is Wilson, himself – the gloryhound who shopped his story all over Washington for a little publicity.
The CIA says that Plame’s position and duties have not changed since her “outing”. Now, wouldn’t an undercover agent be reassigned after beng outed? Wouldn’t she go into hiding for all the dozens of cloak-n-dagger spies who must now be after her for revenge? But no, she and her husband give interviews, attend galas in Washington and live openly in their nice home with a listed phone number. Yah, sure, she was an undercover agent all right.
Antares, since you can’t stay on subject and choose to bring up tired, old nonsense about claims that appeared exaggerated because they had no credible backup (because of CIA incompetence), I have a better subject for you to obsess upon:
Karl Rove should be appointed to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Hah hah hah!
Folks, Dud1 has officially jumped the shark.
Regarding Judy Miller, his frantic attempt to produce a Red Herring is pathetic. Just to make it clear to him, Judith Miller is a PRIVATE CITIZEN, not an ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT.
And I’d be careful about trying to read the tea leaves regarding who is and isn’t a target of Fitzgerald’s probe. The Mehlman RNC spin that Wilson outed his own wife stinks of serious desparation.
Dud1, call me when the shuttle lands.
Puppet media! I love it.
“Her wilfull tipoff to a seditious group is more treasonous than anything Rove is accused of.”
Oh. In that case, call off the dogs.
I only stole $500 from an ATM. My sister stole $650, which is much worse. Therefore, I should get off.
(Yes, I’m lying. Neither of us are bright enough to hack into an ATM.)
Karl Rove as a Supreme Court Justice. I’m going to have nightmares worse than the ones I had after I saw “Pet Semetary” as a kid.
Agreed, Dud has shot his wad and it was a . . . dud.
In case you hadn’t noticed, Dude, the left HATES Judith Miller. She was the number one shill for the Bush / Rove WMD claims. Her sketchy stories ran on the front page of The NY Times for months before we invaded Iraq. The Times even had to run a retraction on her reportage (finally) after it was all proven to be a pack of lies.
Why would Wilson “out” his own wife? It doesn’t even make good nonsense.
Ah, I love the smell of desperate Right-wing flop-sweat in the morning . . .
BTW, Rove could never serve on the Supreme Court because he doesn’t have a law degree.
In fact, he never even graduated from college.
Because after all, why should one have to be well-educated to serve as senior advisor to a President and help him run the most powerful country on earth?
I am not even going to waste my time trying to wade through all the rhetoric here…
Sorry CF.
…and Nathan stamps off in a hissy fit.
You gotta admit though, that guy Dud1 is an excellent spinner. I’m impressed.
Thought you’d like the dud part.
Karl Rove for Ambassador to the UN
Karl Rove for President of Harvard
Karl Rove for Chairman of the DNC
Hey Antares, do your homework. I quote:
“No law degree is required to be a Supreme Court Justice. The last justice without a law degree was Stanley Reed (1884-1980). Justices who never went to law school include John Jay, John Marshall, Roger Taney, and Salmon P. Chase. Nor is any judicial experience required. People without judicial experience who became Supreme Court justices include William Rehnquist, Louis Brandeis, Lewis Powell, Earl Warren, Byron White, Robert Jackson, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, and Hugo Black. As Senator Hatch said in 1991, ‘Out of the 105 Justices serving on the Supreme Court in our Nation’s history, 41 had no prior State or Federal judicial experience.’”
Wow, I guess that explains the wack-o decisions they make–like Bush v Gore in which they overruled the Florida state law making a state-wide recount mandatory in a close election, thereby stopping the recount and handing the election to Bush.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that since the airplane was invented, we haven’t seen many Supreme’s appointed without a law degree.
Anyway, as long as Rove is pulling Bush’s strings, he’ll be the one who decides on the justice positions anyway. They don’t let Bush play with the scissors . . . these decisions are all made for him.
Antares,
Did you even follow the 2000 election at all?
They did recount the ballots according to state law.
The Florida Supreme court allowed for the hand recounting of only a few select counties which the Supreme Court found to be wrong.
Besides, did you pay any attention to the recount results conducted by the (who knows how many) people and groups after the election?
Bush still won.
Get over it already. Bush won, the court did not hand him the election.
Nathan, didn’t the Supreme Court stop the count, thereby “handing” the election to Bush? And aren’t you, like your conservative friends trying to change the subject? The point is, Rove was INVOLVED in the outing of a CIA agent. Bush said he’d FIRE anybody who was INVOLVED. Do we have a dissagreement about what Bush said about FIRING anybody who was INVOLVED? Do you think the President should keep his word or not? I have no doubt that the GOP is going to find some way to keep Rove out of jail considering the law involved was a farce. But it was still pretty unethical for Rove to out a CIA agent. Where does that stop? If it’s ok to out Plame, why not out all agents? Is it wrong sometimes, and not wrong sometimes?
I’m not really concerned about all the frivolous details floating around here, I want to know if the President is going to stand behind his word. I repeat, Bush said he’d FIRE anybody who was INVOLVED.
Bush will fire Rove from his position as the “Stater of Truth to Low Level Reporters.” Rove will retain his job as Chief Antagonist of the Loony Fever Swamp.
Okay, this is my last post because this discussion is growing tiresom, but one wonders what the Bush administration would have to do to make the Bush brownshirts lose support for him.
Lie us into a war with Iraq. “No, that’s fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.”
Ignore Al Qaeda threats and blame everyone but themselves. “It’s Clinton’s fault!”
Preside over five years of the worst stock market since Nixon. “Terrorism.”
Pass tax breaks for the rich and send the budget deficit and national debt to historic highs. “The rich are better than you and me. They deserve tax breaks.”
Tell the American public that we’d be in and out of Iraq in six weeks, but it turned out to be going on three years, 1800 American deaths, and a billion dollars a week. “Now the terrorists know we’re serious.”
He promised to get Osama dead or alive. “Well, who knew he’d be a really good hider.”
Bush used to snort cocaine like a fiend. “You can’t prove that, so just shut up.”
Bush is the worst. president. ever. I thought his father was a bad president but he was like Thomas Jefferson compared to this moron . . .
“but my comments, which are based on good, published information are somehow not credible.”
“Bush will fire Rove from his position as the “Stater of Truth to Low Level Reporters.” Rove will retain his job as Chief Antagonist of the Loony Fever Swamp.”
Oh, I call this a “credible” post. Is this one of your comments that are based on good published information?
I’d say there’s a blizzard of BS coming from right-wing la,la land. Anything to change the subject or shy away from the issue.
Go back to your drugs, dude1.
Issue? Right. Muslims are murdering people by the thousands in Africa, and the fever swamp obsesses over non-issues like Rove’s private conversations with an unethical reporter.Sorry. Not important, unless you’re desperate for something to do. Have at it. I’ll just let it go until the indictments are made (hold your breath). You can waste your time on it until you’re blue in the face. Have your litle hate fest. It never was a serious issue. Only the desperate try to make anything of it.
In other words, Dude1, You can’t bring yourself to give honest straightforward answers to 2 simple questions. Rather, you make some obscure remark about Muslims killing people in Africa, proclaim an investigation by the Justice Department as not important, hurl the usual conservative insults, and storm off in a huff. Ta, ta, dude1.
So I’ll open it up to any conservative to answer 2 simple questions:
Did or did not President Bush say he’d FIRE anyone INVOLVED?
Should the President keep his word?
Dear friends,
Let me enlighten you on Karl’s fate.
He did not “out” a CIA agent.
He is not a target of the 2 year old special investigation. He is a witness.
Bush will not fire him. He is not accused or guilty of a crime nor is he the subject of an ongoing investigation.
Bush will not fire him.
The more that the democrats and the MSM try to get him the smaller they will appear to the American public.
You all might as well get your panties in a wad over something else.
Fondly
Hank
Ah yes, the indominable Hank. How are you this fine evening? Hank, I’m starting to think it’s impossible th get an answer to 2 simple straightforward questions from anybody that’s conservative. Now Hank, I’ve read some of your posts and you strike me as a straight shooter. While I dissagree with you most of the time, I find your posts well written and I don’t question the integrity of your beliefs. Would you care to take a shot at answering my questions? A simple yes or no will do.
Respectfully,
Dagett
Dear Dagett,
Even though you called me indominable (is that a medical condition or did you mean indomitable?) I’ll respond to your query. Note that I said I will respond, which is not necessarily the same as answering your question.
You asked,
“Did or did not President Bush say he’d FIRE anyone INVOLVED?”
Actually, I’m not sure what he said for sure, I think he said that anyone responsible for outing a CIA agent will be “dealt with appropriately.”
“anyone INVOLVED?” could include a lot of innocent people. I assume you are talking about the alledged outing of the CIA agent. If so, I disagree with your premise. A CIA agent was not outed. Wilson’s wife was an ex-covert agent. For the past eight years or so she has been merely an employee. Telling anyone that she was an employee was not in any way harmful to her or against the law.You asked,
“Should the President keep his word?”
Of course he should keep his word. He should be truthful.
I’m not trying to spin the facts, or be slick in my response, I am merely trying to relate the truth as I understand it.
Hopefully you will find this helpful.
Fondly,
Hank
Now Dagett,
Do me a favor and respond to one of my questions.
Why do you think Judith Miller is in jail tonight?
Fondly.
Hank
Dagett,The SCOTUS stopped the Florida Supreme Court from allowing the recounting of only selected groups of votes, which was being done in defiance of the applicable Florida laws.
NEVERTHELESS, every complete recount done afterwards, including one that included the media, concluded that Bush got more votes.
At no time did the SCOTUS undermine the legal process. It was the Florida court that tried to do that. The SCOTUS merely stopped that and handed the vote back to the people of Florida.
So, what you are really complaining about is that the SCOTUS denied democrats their long-standing advantage in poll-rigging.
Footnote – see Washington State governor race.
Daget,
So far, Rove’s testimony matches Cooper’s and the prosecutors do not consider Rove a target of the investigation. In other words, no leak.
Also, Dude1 answered your question with a pie in the face that was actually a full and complete answer, given the import of the non-issue. You quoted it, but fully missed the point
“Bush will fire Rove from his position as the “Stater of Truth to Low Level Reporters.” Rove will retain his job as Chief Antagonist of the Loony Fever Swamp.”
Enjoy the frogs.
Way to go, Hank. At least you managed 50% which is far better that a lot of your peers. And you did it without throwing a blizzard of BS and not one insult. I think your conservative friends could learn a lot from you.
Your question: ” Why do you think Judith Miller is in jail tonight?”
I could pretend to be a conservative and dissemble with something like: “Because she hasn’t finished serving her sentence.” But you’ve treated me with respect and I owe you no less, so here goes.She’s in jail on a contempt charge. That said, I don’t understand why. I may not care for Judith Miller’s politics, but I suspect she has principal on her side and I respect that.Is that an acceptable answer?
Now, back to my question about what the President said. Hank, I agree it’s an almost impossible question for a conservative. That’s part of the reason I asked it. A conservative seems to have difficulty looking you right in the eye and telling you what the president said. So let me give you some help, a couple of links. One from an interview on Fox, and the other from Rush, both Icons of Right-wingery. I’ll even throw in an extra as a bonus.
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/11/fox_what_scotty_mcclellan_and_roves_lawyer_said_pretty_close_to_a_lie.phpThe president has said he would fire anybody who blew a CIA’s officer’s cover.
Rove’s attorney said Rove didn’t specifically give Plame’s name. But, he admits that Rove identified her to Cooper as the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/bush_rove_leak_quotes_mcclellan.htm
Q: But can you confirm that the President would fire anyone on his staff found to have leaked classified information?
McClellan: I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration.
Here is Scott McClellan again on October 7, 2003….McClellan: If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that’s not the way this White House operates, that’s not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business.
Carl Cameron insists President Bush never promised to fire over the leak.. McClellan on October 7, 2003…McClellan: No, no. Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I’ll talk to you about what he wants.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/709/5503887.html
Respect
Dagett
Cadman,”The SCOTUS stopped the Florida Supreme Court from allowing the recounting of only selected groups of votes, which was being done in defiance of the applicable Florida laws.”
They reversed the Florida Supreme Court. Wouldn’t you think The FSC would know Florida law? So much for state’s rights. Your first post is a typical blizzard of conservative BS, because you can’t be honest enough to answer my questions, can you?
As for dude1, he was a walking blizzard and rather than answer an honest question, he stomped off mad. “pie in the Face”? Come on, Cadman, let’s not be juvinile. If you want to see something interesting, check all the email addresses dude lists throughout this thread. I think that boy may have a problem.By the way, I checked YOUR email address. CADDWG? How I wish we could drop the politics and discuss that! Seems we have a mutual intrest. I took my first course at WSU in 1986. I got the latest roll-out this spring. It’s really awesome! I’m heavily involved in 3D and VIZ.But back to subject. Seems you’re another fountian of BS and refuse to answer simple questions (answer, not respond). Let the insults and BS fly my friend!
Reality check (just so we keep on track). The CIA says Plame was a COVERT agent. Who am I to dispute the CIA? I’m not conservative enough to do that. Spin it anyway you want, but she was indeed, a covert agent even if that doesn’t fit your political agenda.
Those of you of conservative bent keep saying this isn’t important. Excuse me? The Justice Department (Run by a republican appointee) seems to think it’s important. This is a matter of the security of the US! Explain why it’s unimportant. As I asked before, at what level does it become important? Is it ok to out some agents, and not others? Who makes that decision, based on what? Political affiliation? I agree it’s embarrassing for Republicans.
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for answers; a simple yes or no. Hank comes close, but typical conservative, he just can’t bring himself to utter the words.
Did the President say he’d FIRE anybody INVOLVED?
Should the President keep his word?
Simple questions. Any third grader could figure out the answers.
Dear Dagett,
Your answer to my question was satisfactory. That’s about all any one knows about Judith Miller. The fact that liberals and the MSM don’t seem to curious about her circumstances tells us a lot about the motives of the democrats in this fiasco. She is a NYT reporter. Why won’t the Times let her testify? What are they hiding? If they think that Rove is the ’source’ they are all over it.
Okay, I’ll answer your questions.
You asked,
“Did the President say he’d FIRE anybody INVOLVED?”
The correct simple answer to your question is:
No.
THE PRESIDENT: “Listen, I know of nobody — I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.”
Now admittedly a reasonalble man would assume that the approproate action would be to fire any one that leaked classified information.
But your question is premised on the erronius assumption that Rove is the ‘leaker’. Again I say, no evidence to this assertion, only the hopes and prayers of liberal sycophants. (Similar to you and your ilk)
You asked,
“Should the President keep his word?”
The answer to your question is:
Yes.
However, this is a very disengenuous question. It is based on the false premise that the president has lied. It’s based on the false assertion that Karl Rove is guilty of something.
In summary, the purpose of your questions (that conservatives smarter than I refused to answer) was not to find answers. Their purpose is to cast dispersions on the credibility of the president. By asking them you can imply that the president is a liar with no credible proof of your assertions.
The fact that you pursue their answers so pasionately proves that you are either a fool or a lier. Personally, I think you are basically honest, thats why I bother to answer you.
You’re just a fool.
Sincerely,
Hank
It’s now being reported that Rove WAS Novak’s “second” source on the Plame article and that his first source was another “senior administration official”. So all of the neocons can put this “Joe ratted his own wife” crap squarely where it belongs. The question now becomes who was the other source? Many fingers are pointing at Cheney and that might explain the President’s recent attitude shift…from Rove didn’t do it to no comment. No matter who the other official was….this whole episode is shameful and for once in this administration someone should be taken to task for their screw ups instead of given a medal or promotion!
Hank, now you’ve been dishonest. The President did indeed say that he’d fire anybody involved in outing a CIA agent. I provided the links and the quotes from Scott McClellan, the presedent’s spokesman. If you are determined to deny facts, I guess we have nothing more to discuss. This isn’t Republican dreamland, it’s reality.
I just read the post above by nicki, and if that’s true, your boy Rove is indeed a RAT. Now, will the President stand behind his word? I’ll bet not!Hank, I’m always happy to engage you in discussion, as long as you can keep it factual.
Regards,
Dagett
Dear Dagett,
Your’re a pretty smart fellow, Do you think Nikki is a liar, or just a fool like you?
Fondly,
Hank
Right, Dagett. You’re seeing the difference between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals draw conclusions based on facts. Conservatives used to do this too, but now they start with the conclusion “Bush is always good and right,” and they grasp at any straws to support that position.
No wonder Bush is so religious . . . it requires an almost religious faith ignoring a mountain of evidence to believe in this man.
When Clinton was caught in a sleazy affair and lied to the American public, I was outraged. He should have resigned. His selfishness hurt the Democratic party terribly–look at who’s running the gov’t now.
But the Bush brownshirts have absolutely no qualms about their fearless leader–1800 dead Americans for the pissant country of Iraq. No problem . . .
Hank, I’m so dissapointed. You just couldn’t resist stooping to name-calling, could you? So which is it, Hank? You called me a smart fellow and a fool in the same breath. Note that when I referenced nicki’s post, I said “if that’s true”, as I haven’t seen that in the news yet.
I thought that out of all the conservative miscreants, you’d be the one who could carry on a dispassionate discussion. Seems I misjudged you. You’re just another mindless water-carrier for a morally corrupt administration. Spin some more hank.
Antares,I’ve always known the difference between liberals and conservatives. My little exercise with my 2 questions was enlightening, wouldn’t you say? Not one single conservative could answer a couple of simple questions. They blew, they ranted, they resort to name calling, but none of them could bring themselves to utter a simple truth, because doing so would make the party look bad.You make some good points.
My point is, conservatives don’t care about what’s right or wrong…only about winning the argument.
Luck Antares,
Dagett
Did I miss something?
Where did Bush say that he would fire anyone involved?
I did not see that in any of the so called “mountains of evidence” provided so far.
Dear Dagett,
You’ve spent all morning on the Internet. One more time and you’re outta here. Get to work.
Your boss
Nathan, if you’re addressing me, I’ve said nothing about evidence. All I asked was,
Did the president or did he not say he’d fire anyone involved? (and let’s not split hairs)
Should the president stand behind his word?(Hint: there are links provided in a previous post).
This just seems to anger the heck out of conservatives. I can’t get a straight or honest answer. All I get is a bunch of BS, change the subject, or name-calling.Care to try?
Dear Dagett,
I’m sorry, I’m week. I’ll admit, I called you a name.
But I did answer your questions. I also explained why you were so insistant on asking them. You don’t care about the answers you just want to use them to beat up conservatives on this blog. Your recent post to Antares confirms this conclusion.
There is no discrepancy in calling you smart and a fool. I think you are smart enough to eventually overcome your childlike foolishness.
However, sooner or later, you will have to honestly ask yourself some hard questions. Like, “What ever happened about Tom Delay?” Or, “How can the liberals tolerate a senater that is a former Klansman that still uses the ‘N’ word in his every day speech, public and private, and yet defame another senator for remarks at a dinner praising an old friend?” Or, “Why are liberal senators that have leaked classified info for no other reason than political gain really be worried about outing a CIA agent that caused no harm?”
I called you a fool, but in all honesty I believe you are a fool.
Hank
Dagett,You ask disingenous questions based on incorrect, misleading, and self-serving interpretations of information.
Dude1 answered your questions with the disdain you deserved.
Hank answered your questions.
But all you want is someone to say.
“Oh, Mr. cad genius, sir, yes indeed the President promised to ‘burn anyone and everyone at the stake for any inolvement in ever mentioning that Wilson had a wife. Burn, burn, burn ‘em all. Start the funeral pyres. Where’s my marshmallow stick?’
And so, Mr. cad genius sir, it follows that, since everyone and his dog knows about Wilson’s wife, and since most of them have not yet been so much as singed, the President should get another duly awarded black mark from the angry left for being a –GASP — liar, even though all we have are a gazillion media leaks for evidence, and the investigation has not yet resulted in a single indictment.”
You just keep up your disingenuous, passive-aggressive style where you start with a false premise because you want the President to look like a liar, and then refuse to admit the tenuous leaps in your thinking.
Your arguments about the Supreme Court show that you are still obsessing about long dead issues that even the MSM doesn’t dredge up any more — issues that are dead because, even if the Supreme Court hadn’t intervened, Bush would have won every full recount. Period. But you still obsess.
As for name calling, as I look through the posts, the first example comes from Tara, who calls the President an “icehearted monster” and says “Rove is Bush’s brain.” She then goes on to claim that Rove will be excused because he’s a “good, christian conservative”, using her scare quotes to disparage the idea, and not capitalizing Christian to show her lack of respect for religion.
Then CF comes in, calling Nathan a “jerk off” in the first line, and later uses terms and words like “snake in the grass”, “wingnuts,” and “stupider.”
You then chime in with your first post, using the term “unethical loosers.”
Dude1 then rubs some salt in your wounds and twister responds with the rant of all rants, highlighted by the words “praying to your action figure Bush doll.”
Sheesh. But, the angry left just knows for a fact that it’s only the right that uses name-calling.
Listen, Dagett, everyone except your angry bush-hating buddies will walk away from you in disgust. You’re just another obsessive Bush hater. You’re not worth another thought.
I’m done with you, too.
“and not capitalizing Christian to show her lack of respect for religion.”
My bad. Sorry if I offended you, but when typing at 76 wpm my capitalization isn’t perfect. I meant no disrespect, being a Lutheran and all.
Clara should get her panties out of the wad they currently appear to be in.
The disingenuous and evasive reponses of the conservative apologists on this site get exactly what they deserve: ridicule and belittling. When hacks like Nathan ignore direct question and pretend that well-documented evidence in the public sphere doesn’t exist, I ridicule them. When Dude1 plays that game of spinning out apologetics at all costs, I call him out as the Bush Administration Dead-Ender that he is. Simple as that.
Clara doesn’t like it, so she’s taking her ball and going home. Well, boo-hoo-hoo, Clara. On this site, we play as hardball as the Administration plays with us. And like most defenders of this Administration, you can dish it out but you can’t take it.
And, in the end, the bottom line is that a Bush Administration official leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to the press. None of the spin or mass distraction from the RNC changes that one bit.
And all of you suck-up, Bush Administration apologists should put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Thank you, CF. I was starting to feel a little beseiged, heh, heh.
Here it is:
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/3289/
Got your back, Dagett. I just wish this site offered emoticons as well as neocons.
Here’s my combative, mildly ironic, facial emoticon:
>; )
Needs work, I know.
If Bush did indeed say that he would: “fire anyone involved” then it shouldn’t be so hard to point that quote out to me.
None of the evidence provided so far shows that he said that.
Just because the liberals keep saying it, doesn’t mean that it is well known knowledge in the public sphere…
Ah, where to start.Well Nathan, since you’re the big conservative gun around here (respect)…. Actually, I did provide a quote, a couple in fact. But I know you’re a busy man, so here are some quotes:
Q: But can you confirm that the President would fire anyone on his staff found to have leaked classified information?
McClellan: I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration.
Here is Scott McClellan again on October 7, 2003….McClellan: If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that’s not the way this White House operates, that’s not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business.
Carl Cameron insists President Bush never promised to fire over the leak.. McClellan on October 7, 2003…McClellan: No, no. Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I’ll talk to you about what he wants.
Note that Scottie says he speaks for the president. He’s the spokesman.the links are posted above; check them out for yourself.
And Hank,Man, you’re the one who dissapointed me the most. You’re always so calm and composed when you’re tearing Ed up. Did I blow your cover? I obviously blew your cool.You said, “I’m sorry, I’m week.” Week? Is that another of your medical conditions? But seriously man, you couldn’t prevail so you blew up like a spoiled 5 year-old. Very impressive.
“”What ever happened about Tom Delay?” Or, “How can the liberals tolerate a senater that is a former Klansman that still uses the ‘N’ word in his every day speech, public and private, and yet defame another senator for remarks at a dinner praising an old friend?”
What has that got to do with the subject at hand? You’re still trying to change the subject.
I’m a fool? You lost your cool, resorted to name calling, and generally made an ass out of yourself. Looks like you were bested by a fool.
Oh Clara!I’ll say this for you…you came closer to answering my simple questions than any of your conservative allies. But would you mind showing me where anybody said anything about “burning anybody at the stake”?Cad Genius?!?! Goodness, all I said was,
“How I wish we could drop the politics and discuss that! Seems we have a mutual intrest. I took my first course at WSU in 1986. I got the latest roll-out this spring. It’s really awesome! I’m heavily involved in 3D and VIZ.
The best insult you could come up with is “Cad Genius?” You’re a strange lady, Clara.
You list examples of name calling :
“As for name calling, as I look through the posts, the first example comes from Tara, who calls the President an “icehearted monster” and says “Rove is Bush’s brain.” She then goes on to claim that Rove will be excused because he’s a “good, christian conservative”, using her scare quotes to disparage the idea, and not capitalizing Christian to show her lack of respect for religion.
Then CF comes in, calling Nathan a “jerk off” in the first line, and later uses terms and words like “snake in the grass”, “wingnuts,” and “stupider.”
You then chime in with your first post, using the term “unethical loosers.”
Clara, do I have to point out that I didn’t call anybody on this blog a name until I was attacked first? Whatever, your only intrest was to attack.
“Your arguments about the Supreme Court show that you are still obsessing about long dead issues that even the MSM doesn’t dredge up any more — issues that are dead because, even if the Supreme Court hadn’t intervened, Bush would have won every full recount. Period. But you still obsess.”
Dear lady, I only answered another post. You must have been educated locally, since you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.
Clara, have you ever ran out from under the porch and bit the mailman?
“Listen, Dagett, everyone except your angry bush-hating buddies will walk away from you in disgust. You’re just another obsessive Bush hater. You’re not worth another thought.”
I’m not worth another thought? I’ll see you in your dreams, you naughty thing.
Dagett,
I still dont see the words anyone involved would be fired.
What I did see was this:
“if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration.”
We have yet to see if Karl Rove is responible for the leaking of classified information.
Actually, I haven’t lost my cool, I have methodically demonstrated that you are a disengenuous fool.
I disapointed you? Come on what did you expect? If I had of blown my cool, trust me, you would know.
At first I thought you didn’t really read other people’s posts and try to understand the point they were making. Now I suspect you don’t even read your own.
Fondly,
Hank
That’s a mighty fine piece of hair splitting, Nathan. Still, my source is Scott McClellan. Am I wrong in assuming his source is better than yours?
“if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration.”
If not fired, what does that mean?
Well hank, I see you’d rather insult than discuss issues. Not surprising. I’m not going to engage in a name-calling contest.
Would you please demonstrate another tantrum for us?
Dagett,
You and the liberals are trying to misrepresent it by saying anyone involved.
When it was actually “anyone responsible for the leaking of classified information.”
Do you have some proof the special prosecuter has not revealed yet that Rove leaked classified information?
Nathan,
Did I say I had some proof the special prosecuter has not revealed yet that Rove leaked classified information?
Nathan, I know where you’re going with this. Read on….
“Back in September 2003 when the Valerie Plame leak surfaced, McClellan came out and said that leaking that info was a very serious national security matter and that he’d get to the bottom of it and punish anyone who was involved. Afterwards a grand jury investigation was then underway. Nine months later, June 2004, Bush directly said he’d fire anyone involved.”
From today’s Whitehouse briefing (look it up…I did):
QUESTION: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation.
But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?
MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium.
Um, McClellan agreed that the president said he’d fire anybody involved when asked the question directly. At least I think that’s what “yes” means.
Oops, sorry, Monday July 11 whitehouse breefing.
Obviously, you don’t have military experience, Dagett. You’re barking down the wrong foxhole.What do you people read? “Idiots are us?” Soldiers are dying. And your Idiot policy makers can’t make-up their minds as to why. Talk about stupid?You dummys want to parse the meanings of words to protect your precious “terrorism,” and worry about Rove. This, while the intellectual world is trying the thwart Israeli expansionism? Do you have any idea what damage todays weapons will do? Just look herehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2388027.stm
Is Israel allowed to kill for its defense and not expect anything in return?
You know the Israelis invented al-Qaeda, much in the same way the British invented the “Minute Men.” { a response to an action } Where there is injustice, men will rise to fight. Men will also rise to fight for greed. They’re called Greens.You people live in a hole. You can see straight-up, but not absorb the real world around you. It unfolds to fast for your little minds to keep up with. As do sheep, you prefer herds. Not being capable of independent thought, you desperatly reach for the familar.There you find safty, and that’s why I frighten some of you.Yes, the so-called Patriot Act is a direct violation to the fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The neocons surrounding AlQaeda are directing this disembowlment of our Constitution. Our Country is under attack from within, there is little doubt about that, and Bush supporters don’t have a clue about who is pulling Bush’s “strings,” while letting that happen.Iran has 1 million martyrs ready to swarm or over-run Israel, killing everything. Ignorance can hurt you. That why I was taught to run a “recon” over every target before an attack, and be certain about my Intel. Commanders, such as your type got a lot a good men killed.You are amusingly, but pathetically stupid. Not unlike a bewildered severely retarded child, who, in order to gain attention, tries so desperately to be annoying…Now go away little boy.You sound off-balance, so frustrated. Are you really sure you have any idea what you’re talking about? So much name-calling: The last resort of a scoundrel. So sad.
Ariel Sharon and Alice Pestel got what they wanted today. He had his thugs shoot some Palestinian teenagers for throwing rocks during a demonstration protesting the concrete wall. That Wall, which separates Palestinians farmers from their farm land. In some cases it runs just a few feet from the door of the farm house. Such precise planning. Why?
After a little back and forth violence, Ariel Sharon is now poised for an all-out slaughter using American Helicopter Gun-ships and Tanks and Jets with thousand-pound bombs.
Gaza is about 40 miles by 10 miles and contains 1.3 million Palestinians. A real “turkey-shoot,” against people who are so poorly armed. Why?
Israel has been killing Palestinians for sixty years and someone on the blog asked: “Why doesn’t Sharon just kill them all?” Do you know why? I do. And I’m writing it now. It should be ready in a few hours. It should be an interesting read, that is for those who don’t already know. I’ll bet you know who you are? Would that be a “safe bet?”
Obviously, you don’t have military experience, Dagett. You’re barking down the wrong foxhole.What do you people read? “Idiots are us?” Soldiers are dying. And your Idiot policy makers can’t make-up their minds as to why. Talk about stupid?You dummys want to parse the meanings of words to protect your precious “terrorism,” and worry about Rove. This, while the intellectual world is trying the thwart Israeli expansionism? Do you have any idea what damage todays weapons will do? Just look herehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2388027.stm
Is Israel allowed to kill for its defense and not expect anything in return?
You know the Israelis invented al-Qaeda, much in the same way the British invented the “Minute Men.” { a response to an action } Where there is injustice, men will rise to fight. Men will also rise to fight for greed. They’re called Greens.You people live in a hole. You can see straight-up, but not absorb the real world around you. It unfolds to fast for your little minds to keep up with. As do sheep, you prefer herds. Not being capable of independent thought, you desperatly reach for the familar.There you find safty, and that’s why I frighten some of you.Yes, the so-called Patriot Act is a direct violation to the fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The neocons surrounding AlQaeda are directing this disembowlment of our Constitution. Our Country is under attack from within, there is little doubt about that, and Bush supporters don’t have a clue about who is pulling Bush’s “strings,” while letting that happen.Iran has 1 million martyrs ready to swarm or over-run Israel, killing everything. Ignorance can hurt you. That why I was taught to run a “recon” over every target before an attack, and be certain about my Intel. Commanders, such as your type got a lot a good men killed.You are amusingly, but pathetically stupid. Not unlike a bewildered severely retarded child, who, in order to gain attention, tries so desperately to be annoying…Now go away little boy.You sound off-balance, so frustrated. Are you really sure you have any idea what you’re talking about? So much name-calling: The last resort of a scoundrel. So sad.
Ariel Sharon and Alice Pestel got what they wanted today. He had his thugs shoot some Palestinian teenagers for throwing rocks during a demonstration protesting the concrete wall. That Wall, which separates Palestinians farmers from their farm land. In some cases it runs just a few feet from the door of the farm house. Such precise planning. Why?
After a little back and forth violence, Ariel Sharon is now poised for an all-out slaughter using American Helicopter Gun-ships and Tanks and Jets with thousand-pound bombs.
Gaza is about 40 miles by 10 miles and contains 1.3 million Palestinians. A real “turkey-shoot,” against people who are so poorly armed. Why?
Israel has been killing Palestinians for sixty years and someone on the blog asked: “Why doesn’t Sharon just kill them all?” Do you know why? I do. And I’m writing it now. It should be ready in a few hours. It should be an interesting read, that is for those who don’t already know. I’ll bet you know who you are? Would that be a “safe bet?”
Here it is:
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/3289/
Thanks, Ed. We were all holding our breath for that. By the way, did I ever tell you about my sister, Clarice? I’m sure you’d get a kick out of her. Our great grandaddy stole the formula for a pesticide called Cyclone. Had to do a variation of it later when it was banned for some reason. Cylone B they called it. Damned effective stuff. Used it for killing lice and things. Very effective. Maybe too effective, though you’d probably like it to have been more effective. Heh,heh.
Be careful, though. Darn stuff had the unintended consequence of making the Israelis awfully arrogant, it did. Now they think they have every right to a homeland and to protect it against surrounding countries and the teritory of Palestine (not yet a country). Never was, thanks to those meddling Jordanians and Syrian opportunists. Don’t get me started on the Egyptians dogs.
But more about my twin sister. She has a computer that can actually put out blog comments on more than one subject. I know, I know, it’s almost too much to believe; but the other day I saw her actually do it. Like herehttp://www.nike.com/usa/justdoit/v2/index.jhtml
I’ll bet that sets you up straight, but there’s more. One of them blogs was actually about quilting, can you believe that? And now she quilts K’r'n covers for prisoners whose books might get cold.
Ain’t she sweet?
That’s why I know you’ll like her. Not only that, but she has US citizenship. I know, that makes her a lot more expensive, but an old warhorse like you can afford it. Look, she’s not going to be 13 forever! You can’t wait long before another jihadist brother takes her.
???? ??????? ???????
Hey! I’m number 100! Wow! Stayed up all night for this!! Worth it? Oh, gawwwd yes!!
Yes! Yeeeehaaaww!
On to Woot, now.
Bye, bye !!!
Ed, You said:
“Obviously, you don’t have military experience, Dagett.”
You’re mistaken.
Nathan,
I conclude from your lack of response that you agree with my position. Good choice.
Dagett,
You would conclude wrong.
Ok, I guess I’ll let your mistakes pass for now.
I’ve throughly enjoyed our discussion, Nathan. Turn the lights off when you leave.
Respect,Dagett
To all the Bush brownshirts–I know that facts don’t seem to matter to you and that you all know more than the CIA and the prosecutors, but for the record, here is a statement put out by former and current CIA agents:
“We trained and worked at the CIA with Valerie Plame. We presented the following statement at a hearing on Capitol Hill in October 2003. In light of the latest White House sanctioned assault on Valerie Plame and her character, our testimony remains relevant and accurate.
Jul 15, 2005 — 10:59:46 PM EST
We slogged through the same swamps on patrols, passed clandestine messages to each other, survived a simulated terrorist kidnapping and interrogation, kicked pallets from cargo planes, completed parachute jumps, and literally helped picked ticks off each other after weeks in the woods at a CIA training facility. We knew each other’s secrets. We shared our fears, failures, and successes. We came to rely on each other in a way you do not find in normal civilian life. We understood that a slip of the tongue could end in death for those close to us or for people we didn’t even know.
Clearly some in the Bush Administration do not understand the requirement to protect and shield national security assets. Based on published information we can only conclude that partisan politics by people in the Bush Administration overrode the moral and legal obligations to protect clandestine officers and security assets.
Beyond supporting Mrs. Wilson with our moral support and prayers we want to send a clear message to the political operatives responsible for this. You are a traitor and you are our enemy. You should lose your job and probably should go to jail for blowing the cover of a clandestine intelligence officer.”
More at http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/15/225611/396
*****
To Clara–Those CIA people sure can RANT. This is the RANT of ALL RANTS, isn’t it?
Because after all, you sitting in Wichita, Kansas who’s never even seen the inside of the CIA building know much more what is a real security risk than the agents themselves.
The way you delight in your ignorance is appalling to thinking people.
Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !
Facts for the fever swamp to cry about:
1. In an interview with CNN yesterday, Wilson acknowledged, “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,” though he refused to say anything about her career before that day.
2. From yesterday’s Washington TImes:A former CIA covert agent WHO SUPERVISED Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an “undercover agent,” saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency’s headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
“She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat,” Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.
“Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren’t minding the store here. . . . The agency never changed her cover status.”
In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn’t been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.
3. The New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press all report that Rove “originally learned about the operative [Plame] from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.”
“Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.
“After hearing Mr. Novak’s account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: “I heard that, too.” . . .”