Any Rove Opinions?

[sentrido]

Scooter claims he got the name from Tim Russert. Russert has testified that this is not true. So now we have two senior officials whos testimony is not consistant with the testimony of the reporters they spoke to. Also, these two officials ( Rove & Libby ) were intimately involved in writing Tenents apology and explanation for the Niger issue getting into the State of the Union Speach.

 

[markkus757]

Yeah, sure he lied about Iraq; like Putin, Cheraque, Clinton, Kerry, THE UN, and Kennedy all did as well. Stop the nonsense. It's one thing to not like someone. It's totally another to let it blind your judgement. I don't think Clinton and Ms. Waco would've done anything but launch a few more cruise missiles. He had plenty of reason to go after them from previous attacks, but he thought it was more of an FBI issue than a military issue. By the way, before you stick your foot in your mouth again, Bush SHOULD have done something before 9/11 even happened. All of the evidence was there in front of him and HE chose to not bother. We still have issues with imigration and NEITHER side is doing anything about it. I think we can agree to that.

 

[sentrido]

So you think that Bush lied?

 

[sentrido]

"In his disclosure form for his confirmation hearings, Mr. Bolton made no mention of being interviewed in the case, a government official said....."

 

[markkus757]

I'm saying that the only way he lied is if everyone else lied as well. Nobody knew exactly what happened in Iraq and everyone's intelligence was so faulty, common sense would indicate that Saddam had WMDs just like he had them in the past. I'm just saying that it was easy for the world to think the way they thought.

 

[sentrido]

I Think the point of this whole issue is that maybe the inteligents wasnt faulty. There are starting to be a lot of examples like this one where what was known, and what we were told are two different stories. It may have been easy for the "World" to think he did have WMD, but the "World" didnt go to war with him, we did, basically alone. Can you show me saddams smoking gun? If at any time during the follow up to the war I woudl have been shown one I would have fully supported it. There was nothing. This guy was flat broke thanks to us. He was declared an infidel by Bin Laden. This nuclear thing was crap, why do you think they attributed it to the British? The CIA wouldnt touch it, and the Brits werent to happy about being put on the hook for it either.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Yeah, sure he lied about Iraq; like Putin, Cheraque, Clinton, Kerry, THE UN, and Kennedy all did as well.

[post="283319"][/post]​

Yes, but none of them lied to justify an invasion of Iraq and involve America in a project that will take a generation to complete successfully. That Bush selectively chose the facts that supported his intentions and reported the same to congress and the American people is clear.

Stop the nonsense. It's one thing to not like someone. It's totally another to let it blind your judgement.

Wait. You assume that because I would hold an elected official accountable for his words and deeds, that I don't like him? Talk about letting something blind your judgement! If it was a case of me merely not liking him I would be holding him up to ridicule with nicknames like "Ms Waco" or something. If everyone thought that elected officials shouldn't be held accountable for their actions or that anyone who would question an elected official does so simply because they "don't like" them, we might as well go back to a monarchical system of government, because that's not a democracy.

I don't think Clinton and Ms. Waco would've done anything but launch a few more cruise missiles.

Well, that does nothing to address my question about the Patriot Act, but lets run with it. Considering how the Republicans reacted to Clinton intervening to stop a genocide in Kosovo, accusing him of attempting to draw attention away from his domestic problems, how do you think they would have reacted to him announcing an invasion of Afghanistan without an attack like 9/11 to show justify it?

By the way, before you stick your foot in your mouth again,...

Are you incapable of having a discussion without resorting to personal attacks on those who may disagree with you?

...Bush SHOULD have done something before 9/11 even happened.

He did. He paid the Taliban $43 Million in the hope that they would stop growing opium. Don't believe me? Read the LA Times column from May 22, 2001 on the subject:

LA Times Article

One has to wonder how much of that money was spent training the 9/11 hijackers.

All of the evidence was there in front of him and HE chose to not bother.

All the evidence was in front of him and he chose what he wanted to believe to justify his Iraq fixation. Every source from the pre-9/11 Bush administration makes it clear that he intended to invade Iraq long before 9/11 and, even as 9/11 was still happening, sought to somehow link the attacks to Saddam.

We still have issues with imigration and NEITHER side is doing anything about it. I think we can agree to that.

Indeed. As long as the US economy is dependent on cheap labor and an eroding standard of living for the average citizen, neither party will do anything about immigration.

 

[diogenes]

And, let's un-spin the spin.

The GOP henchmen are out and about, with some version of Valerie wasn't undercover at the time of the leak, that she didn't hold an important post, and that no harm was done, so no foul.

Wrong.

When you hear CIA agent, you assume deep undercover in East Berlin. That may or may not have been the case with Ms Plame, and let's assume the most benign scenario.

Assume Ms Plame was posted to an allied nation (yes, Virginia, we read each other's mail - every time you turn around, we're turning up a Mossad agent or asset in the good old USA)such as Spain or France.

Assume she sat up networks, turned Spanish or French assets, or successfully planted false information.

Even if she did that 10 years ago, our national security has now been compromised, now and going forward, as the nations she was posted to are putting everything and everyone she had contact with under a microscope.

And, what about the morale of current and future operatives? Rather than our President acting decisively on behalf of national security, he's playing politics with this deal. Are they going to want to go to the mat for him, going forward?

Our straight-shooting security President is "waiting for the special prosecutor to act?"
Who the hell is running this country?

What is to stop the President from marching Rove, Libby and whoever else into his office, and order them to spill?

If they've broken faith with our operatives, the President should give them the boot.

What is stopping him?

Does politics trump national security?

If so, then this Administration is no different from the previous Administration - "...everything is politics."

 

[KCFlyer]

Does politics trump national security?

[post="283512"][/post]​

Apparently it does.

 

[novaqt]

Look this whole Plame thing is nothing more than the Dems trying to create an issue to try to elevate to an impeachable offense. Pay back to the Repubs. for Clinton. These whinny media ninnies ought to realize that Joe Wilson is a has been that has been pushed aside by his own party. He is using this issue to try to elevate himself with staying power so when the Dems win an election, he can get an appointment. Joe Wilson is a has been within his own party and among the Clintons. If he can succeed with this Rove issue maybe McAuliff and Clintons will stand behind him. Right now its all him and the NYT.

 

[KCFlyer]

Look this whole Lewinsky/Whitewater/Travelgate/Troopergate/Vince Foster thing is nothing more than the Reps trying to create an issue to try to elevate to an impeachable offense. Pay back to the Dems for Nixon.

Or at least it seemed that way for 8 years. Because during the proceedings leading up to the Clinton impeachment, the republicans all seemed to lose sight of the facts leading up to the "perjury" were things that had diddly squat to do with national security or ability to govern. "By God, it was perjury, and the liar should be impeached". Or so it went. Now, the politics of re-election have put critical Bush staff members in an unpleasant light. And it's "just politics", according to the right.

If it's politics today, it was politics then. If Clinton can be put in a place to perjur himself in front of a grand jury regarding a blowjob so that the republicans can have an "impeachable offense", then I think the least that should be done is a special prosecutor put in place and put Bush up on the stand to answer something about a drunk driving arrest so that he can also commit an impeachable offense, as if tolerating staff members who commit treason isn't a good enough reason.

 

[sentrido]

Look this whole Plame thing is nothing more than the Dems trying to create an issue to try to elevate to an impeachable offense. Pay back to the Repubs. for Clinton. These whinny media ninnies ought to realize that Joe Wilson is a has been that has been pushed aside by his own party. He is using this issue to try to elevate himself with staying power so when the Dems win an election, he can get an appointment. Joe Wilson is a has been within his own party and among the Clintons. If he can succeed with this Rove issue maybe McAuliff and Clintons will stand behind him. Right now its all him and the NYT.

[post="283599"][/post]​

If lying under oath about sex is an ipeachable offence, where does lying about the leaking of classified information stand? How about leaking the information? If the white house had been honest here and just apoligized for the speech, that would be it. The whole thing would be over. Instead they went after the guy. Why? who knows? But they did. They could have come clean 2 years ago when the leak happened. This whole thing is thier fault alone. Not Wilson, and not the Democrats. Its emabrassing to the White House, and it should be.

 

[diogenes]

Sorry, but the Justice Department, presumably with the ok of a Republican AG, appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the leaking of Valerie, not Joe, Wilson's CIA status.

So, exactly HOW are Dems responsible for ANY of that?

Moreover, no matter how many GOP functionaries want to make Jow Wilson the subject of this situation, he is not. At best, Joe is a peripheral subject.

And, I don't think we are going to find anybody guilty of the Identities Protection Act. But that act set aside, it is still a felony to disclosed classified information, and there appears to be little doubt that has occurred. Not to mention the perjury route; Reps ought to know a perjury trap when they see one, right?

Now, the Reps made much ado about Whitewater; they should now take their lumps like a grown-up. Politics ain't beanbag.

Moreover, the disclosure of HUMINT assets is a major no-no; if a Dem admin had done such a thing, Delay and Frist would be screaming treason, and you can't gainsay that.

I think what some Reps are having trouble with, is this Admin came into office cloaked in a robe of moral superiority, and now, they are finding the Emperor has no clothes.

 

[diogenes]

This, from a former CIA agent who trained with Ms Plame


http://www.alternet.org/story/23691/

 

[diogenes]

And, from a guy who knows a thing or two about cover-ups.

You righties don't get your knickers in a twist; you all have rehabilitated Liddy.


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html