Don't need a name on that one

Post #214,645 by JayMehaffey 7/13/05 1:16:42 PM Reply	Don't need a name on that one For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove. The amount of spin and deception in that paragraph approaches infinity. You don't need anything more to know that the author is a hard right winger, probably a neocon and possibly an associate* of Rove. There is an argument that can be made that Carl Rove can't be found guilty of any crime on the current books. It's possible that Rove didn't know that Plame was an unlisted undercover agent, just that she was CIA. In which case he wouldn't have been knowingly outing an undercover agent. More over, the technical definitions of the various things he might be charged with don't seem to stick well. But to argue that his action where anything other then a vindictive attempt to smear Wilson is denying the obvious. Mr. Wilson was telling the truth when he said that nothing backed up the Presidents Niger Yellow Cake claim and somebody was trying to discredit him. This attempt to discredit him has done massive damage to our nuclear information network, intentional or not. It may not fit the technical legal definition of treason, but morally it obviously is. And there is also the very interesting question of who gave that information to Rove in the first place. It is very likely that who ever gave that information to Rove is one that can be nailed for breaking the law. Jay * Almost said friend before I remembered that people like Rove just have a short list of people that havn't double crossed yet.
Post #214,675 by bepatient 7/13/05 3:25:36 PM Reply	Nit but likely not minor But to argue that his action where anything other then a vindictive attempt to smear Wilson is denying the obvious. My read is that it was not a vindictive attempt to smear Wilson but instead an ill-advised and tremendously stupid defense of the administration. If I understand correctly, the Rove implication only comes from the short conversation with the Time's reporter that said "We didn't send him, she did...so don't write that it was us". In the process, he indicated wife was agency and while not illegal is definitely qualifying of "leak" status and deserving of termination. GWB said he would fire any leaker. He has one now. Interested to see how this plays out. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #214,845 by JayMehaffey 7/14/05 6:22:11 PM Reply	I guess it's possible I havn't seen anybody explain exactly what the reporters where told about Plame in this case. So I guess it's possible. But I've read Novak's original article [link\|http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml\|Novak at Townhall]. And the part about Plame in there stands out like an odd aside that would serve to discredit Wilson, except it's entirly tangental to anything that matters. Novak has already at that point in the article admited that Cheney was the most important person involved in ordering the investigation in the first place. This is contrary to the idea that it was an attempt to set the record straight on who send Wilson, but of course doesn't directly address the question of what the leaker said to Novak. In some ways the bit about Plame in there seems more like Novak knew he had this interesting tidbit of information and didn't know how to work it into the flow of the article. Jay
Post #214,785 by ChrisR 7/14/05 1:49:47 PM Reply	Isn't nepotism a hangable offense? The Bush administration made every effort to investigate any and all memos, images, and expatriots to find the truth about Saddam's WMD program. Debate about the credibility and veracity of such evidence was openly encouraged by the administration, so that we might be sure that we when do use our superpowers, we do not act rashly. It's just not right that those of nepotistic privilege should question the evidence that we did come up with. I say that we set aside special cage at Gitmo for Wilson and his conniving wife who tried to discredit this fine example of our search for evidence. And Karl Rove definitely deserves to be Chief Justice, as he is a purveyor of truth to the electorate, exposing the corruption of those within the CIA who would be naysayers.
Post #214,788 by bepatient 7/14/05 1:58:12 PM Reply	Nah..its ok here. But it's hangable when its an executive in a multinational who's doing it, right? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #214,819 by jb4 7/14/05 4:06:53 PM Reply	(ref. B. Ebbers) <insert Elmer Fudd quote here!> jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT

Welcome to IWETHEY!