Define "involved"

Post #278,527 by bepatient 3/16/07 8:14:31 PM Reply	Define "involved" If that means...did he know they were planning to either replace all or some of the attorneys during the second term...then yes, he was involved. If that means he was the one to institute said plan. No. I don't think him "involved". If that means...Karl Rove reviewed each file and decided that these 8 had to go (the over-riding implication in all of this) I again say no, he wasn't involved. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,578 by Seamus 3/17/07 10:00:10 AM Reply	like this Rove was the person the local officials went to make sure something was done about the ags they didn't like. Rove probably kept it from happening until after they lost the 2006 elections because he didn't want to chance it and he really thought they would keep both houses. After the 2006 election he started looking to 2008 election. Or he kept it from getting to the president until after the 2006 elections. I do tend to believe the president actively agreed to the firings, but no way to prove it. To me he is involved because he is the main conduit for getting a presidential decision. Seamus
Post #278,583 by bepatient 3/17/07 11:02:45 AM Reply	then no. and you have to completely ignore the "scathing" email reality to make that determination. Unless, of course, Karl Rove became a Judge while we weren't looking. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,585 by Another Scott 3/17/07 11:21:54 AM Reply	We may know more next week. [link\|http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002788.php\|TPMMuckracker]: [Conyers wrote:]"The White House Counsel's office advised us this afternoon that the White House would not be providing documents to the Committee, or providing the White House's position with respect to the Committee securing the testimony of White House officials today. This is contrary to earlier expectations that the Committee would receive these answers and documents today and is, therefore, very disappointing. The Counsel's office has assured me that they will continue to work in good faith to get answers to those questions by early next week. Despite those assurances and my continued hope that the White House will resolve these questions in a cooperative fashion, the Committee must take steps to ensure that we are not being stonewalled or slow walked on this matter. I will schedule a vote to issue subpoenas next week for the documents and officials we need to talk to. Allegations that our criminal justice system has been undermined by partisan politics and that the Congress was deceived about these activities are among the most serious this Congress will consider and we expect immediate answers." We'll see what happens. Cheers, Scott.
Post #278,615 by Seamus 3/17/07 6:39:52 PM Reply	Can you point me to the scathing email reality you are refering to? If it was the email you linked to at the beginning of this thread, that email shows how involved Gonzales was in determing the mechanics of the firings, what it doesn't show is was pushing this at the white house. Could have been Gonzales, but I think Rove is still the much more likely candidate. Either way, the white house pushed through set section in the 2nd patroit act that allowed them to do this and they used it. Congress needs to be alot more determined not to let legislation slipped through like this again. Seamus
Post #278,622 by bepatient 3/17/07 9:46:39 PM Reply	So now you agree with me? The email that created all the stir is the one I linked. So now, you see, why I question what all the stir is about? And again, the fact that the act was rubber stamped by D and R alike seems to be dismissed because it was "slipped in there". Round and round we go. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,653 by Seamus 3/18/07 6:38:19 AM Reply	No I don't Because I am not sure what you believe. Who pushed the firings through? I believe that without Rove's approval it wouldn't have happened. It looks like they were trying to swing the voting towards the republicans in certain states - elections are Rove's area and I don't believe anyone in this administration steps on his toes, except shrub. Could have been Gonzalas, but I don't think so. He has his issues regarding the blocking of investigations that might bite him in the ass. Unfortunately, Congresses has probably let way too legislation be voted on without their intimate knowledge of the details. This is a long term issue to get congress to take responsibility for the legislation they pass. The firings are an immediate issue. It may have been legal, but the ags need to be able to do their jobs without worrying that they will lose their job if they chose the law over politics. Seamus
Post #278,665 by drewk 3/18/07 9:23:03 AM Reply	If not Rove, who did push it? === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #278,619 by jb4 3/17/07 9:20:49 PM Reply	is /iz/ - verb is /ɪz/ \ufffdverb 1.\t3rd pers. sing. pres. indic. of be. \ufffdIdiom 2.\tas is. as1 (def. 25). [Origin: bef. 900; ME, OE; c. D is, ON es, er, G, Goth ist, L est, Gk est\ufffd, OCS jestĭ, Skt asti] There. I hope we've settled that! jb4 "It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment." — George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
Post #278,623 by bepatient 3/17/07 9:47:47 PM Reply	It'd be funny if it wasn't sad. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Welcome to IWETHEY!