[clancy98]

Sorry MikeD, I don't control who you group yourself in with. Personally, I find "liberal" is a term that fires certain people up, and not much more, really. Sort of my answer to "Right-wing conservative wacko"


But I'm sure that I am the first to utter something so partisan on the monkey.

 

[MikeD]

Personally, I find "liberal" is a term that fires certain people up, and not much more, really. Sort of my answer to "Right-wing conservative wacko"

True enough...but how seriously do you take people who throw out "right-wing conservative wacko" instead of actually discussing the issues?

Again, I realize the political effectiveness of such terms, and how they're actually more important in public politics than actual discussion, analysis, and debate. (re: George Bush and Michael Moore, for example) But I guess that's something I'm naively hoping to escape...at least temporarily for purposes of a good intellectual exercise, however removed from reality.

MD

 

[clancy98]

You're right Mike but try getting anyone on the monkey to listen or to be respectful of your opinion as a conservative in the first place, on the monkey, is impossible. I learned a long time ago that trying to have rational political discussions in the face of all the "bigoiltexasbushcheneyhalliburton" propaganda on the monkey is sort of a lost cause.



I'm just thanking god that John Kerry did not become president.

 

[MikeD]

I'm just thanking god that John Kerry did not become president.

You should be thanking John Kerry.

 

[clancy98]

this is true

 

[Changleen]

You're right Mike but try getting anyone on the monkey to listen or to be respectful of your opinion as a conservative in the first place, on the monkey, is impossible. I learned a long time ago that trying to have rational political discussions in the face of all the "bigoiltexasbushcheneyhalliburton" propaganda on the monkey is sort of a lost cause.

Not really, you just need to start with a rational premis. Since most Repub stuff is posted by N8 these days, it's generally way over the horizon to begin with.

Secondly, look at this case as an example too. It's yet another case of high profile Republican media manipulation for all the wrong reasons. This administration really doesn't have much positive going for it right now.

Edit: And Big oil and Haliburton ARE massive contributing factors in most decisons the Bush junta makes, so that's why it's banded around so much.

 

[Changleen]

More now:

Mon Jul 11,11:53 AM ET

David Corn, The Nation -- In a weekend posting I asked if it was time to get ready for the Karl Rove frog-march. The question was prompted by a Newsweek article by reporter Michael Isikoff that disclosed the first documentary evidence showing that Rove revealed to a reporter that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the
CIA. In a July 11, 2003, e-mail that Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper sent to his bureau chief, Cooper noted he had spoken to Rove on "double super secret background" and that Rove had told him that Wilson's "wife...apparently works at the agency on wmd issues." "Agency" means CIA. This is not good news for Rove and the White House.

The e-mail--which Time had turned over to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the Plame/CIA leak--may not be enough to prompt Fitzgerald to indict Rove. Under the narrowly written Intelligence Identities Protect Act, Fitzgerald would have to show that Rove knew Valerie Wilson (a k a Valerie Plame) was working at the CIA under cover--that is, as a secret employee--which she was.

But Fitzgerald still could build such a case upon other evidence. And Rove also could be in legal peril if his previous testimony to Fitzgerald is contradicted by this e-mail--or the other material Time surrendered, over Cooper's objections, to Fitzgerald or by Cooper's forthcoming testimony to Fitzgerald's grand jury. (Last week, Cooper declared his source, presumably Rove, had given him permission to testify before the grand jury.)

But let's put aside the legal issues for a moment. This e-mail demonstrates that Rove committed a firing offense. He leaked national security information as part of a fierce campaign to undermine Wilson, who had criticized the White House on the war on Iraq.

Rove's overworked attorney, Robert Luskin, defends his client by arguing that Rove never revealed the name of Valerie Plame/Wilson to Cooper and that he only referred to her as Wilson's wife.

This is not much of a defense.

If Cooper or any other journalist had written that "Wilson's wife works for the CIA"--without mentioning her name--such a disclosure could have been expected to have the same effect as if her name had been used: Valerie Wilson would have been compromised, her anti-WMD work placed at risk and national security potentially harmed.

Either Rove knew that he was revealing an undercover officer to a reporter or he was identifying a CIA officer without bothering to check on her status and without considering the consequences of outing her.

Take your pick: In both scenarios Rove is acting in a reckless and cavalier fashion, ignoring national security interests to score a political point against a policy foe.

This ought to get Rove fired--unless he resigns first.

Can George W. Bush countenance such conduct within the White House? Consider what White House press secretary Scott McClellan said on September 29, 2003, after the news broke that the Justice Department was investigating the leak. McClellan declared of the Plame/CIA leak, "That is not the way this White House operates. The president expects everyone in his Administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing."

Apparently, it is how the White House operated--or at least how Rove operated. If he violated White House rules (and presidential expectations) that prohibit such skulduggery, he should be booted.

 

[Changleen]

Awesome:

CIA Leak Quotes

^Sept. 29, 2003

Q: You said this morning, quote, ``The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved.'' How does he know that?

A: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. ... I've said that it's not true. ... And I have spoken with Karl Rove.

Q: It doesn't take much for the president to ask a senior official working for him, to just lay the question out for a few people and end this controversy today.

A: Do you have specific information to bring to our attention? ... Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We'd spend all our time doing that.''

Q: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, ``Did you ever have this information?''

A: I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

^---

^Oct. 7, 2003

Q: You have said that you personally went to Scooter Libby (Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff), Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams (National Security Council official) to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that? And can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

A: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They are good individuals. They are important members of our White House team. And that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

^---

^Oct. 10, 2003

Q: Earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.

Q: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Q: They were not involved in what?

A: The leaking of classified information.

^---

July 11, 2005:

Q: Do you want to retract your statement that Rove, Karl Rove, was not involved in the Valerie Plame expose?

A: I appreciate the question. This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we're not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing.

Q: But Rove has apparently commented, through his lawyer, that he was definitely involved.

A: You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: I'm saying, why did you stand there and say he was not involved?

A: Again, while there is an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to be commenting on it nor is ... .

Q: Any remorse?

A: Nor is the White House, because the president wanted us to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that's what we're doing.

White House in lying through their teeth shocker. News (suppressed and distorted) at 10.

 

[Changleen]

I can't get enough of this:

Spokesman Holds Tongue During Intense Grilling

By Dana Milbank

Tuesday, July 12, 2005; Page A04

On the north lawn of the White House yesterday afternoon, gardeners were taking a chain saw and wood chipper to some tree branches. Inside the briefing room, reporters were taking press secretary Scott McClellan to the woodshed.

It was journalists' first chance to grill McClellan on camera since coming to the conclusion that he had misled them 18 months ago when he said President Bush's top political aide, Karl Rove, had nothing to do with the unmasking of a CIA operative. The recipients of McClellan's bum steer were furious -- hectoring him more than questioning him.

"This is ridiculous!"

"You're in a bad spot here, Scott."

"Have you consulted a personal attorney?"

The 32-minute pummeling was perhaps the worst McClellan received since he got the job two years ago. His eyes were red and tired. He wiggled his foot nervously behind the lectern and robotically refused to answer no fewer than 35 questions about Rove and the outing of the CIA's Valerie Plame. Twenty-two times McClellan repeated that an "ongoing" investigation prevented him from explaining the gap between his past statements and the facts.

In September 2003, McClellan said that anybody found to be involved in the Plame unmasking "would no longer be in this administration." He said that any suggestion of Rove's involvement was "ridiculous." But in recent days, Rove's lawyer and an internal Time magazine e-mail confirmed that Rove told Time that the wife of administration critic and former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was with the CIA.

This produced a frenzy in the briefing room yesterday, where McClellan's long opening statement about the 10th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre did not distract the reporters.

The Associated Press's Terry Hunt led off. "Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?"

McClellan, wearing a gray suit and heavy makeup, delivered the first of many demurrals. "While that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment," he said.

Hunt, expecting this, pressed: "I wasn't actually talking about any investigation."

"Yes," McClellan allowed, "but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation."

McClellan delivered a nearly verbatim response to CBS's John Roberts, so NBC's David Gregory tried to provoke him, asking: "Did Karl Rove commit a crime?"

"This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation," a pained McClellan repeated. After dodging some follow-up questions, he tried to quiet Gregory by saying, "Let me finish."

Gregory almost shouted back: "No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything."

ABC's Terry Moran tried next, observing that Rove "has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information."

McClellan repeated his mantra. "Ongoing criminal investigation," said he.

The spokesman gave a substantive answer to only one question, saying prosecutors asked the White House in 2003 to stop making public comments on the case. But that only made matters worse, because Bush himself continued to talk about the leaks in 2004. When this inconsistency was pointed out, McClellan clammed up, saying: "You can keep asking [questions], but you have my response."

This incited the normally mild-mannered Richard Stevenson of the New York Times, who retorted: "We are going to keep asking them."

As the barrage continued, McClellan reached for a lifeline, calling on Raghubir Goyal of the India Globe, who reliably asks about Pakistan -- and did so again. A grateful McClellan offered Goyal an expansive response about how "free nations are peaceful societies."

McClellan tried for relief from Fox News, but Carl Cameron hit him with a tough one. "Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?"

McClellan wouldn't say, so a mischievous April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks tried to get McClellan to say something -- anything -- about Rove. "Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this administration?" she asked.

"I think I've responded," McClellan answered.

The press secretary seemed grateful when questions turned to other subjects, such as the Supreme Court, the attacks in London or a withdrawal from Iraq. At other times, he seemed to plead for understanding from his questioners, saying they "know the type of person that I am."

McClellan is indeed well liked by the press corps. But that counts for little now, when recent events have shown that he either misled reporters deliberately or was duped by his White House colleagues. Ken Herman, the voluble Cox News White House reporter, even invoked Watergate days, asking if McClellan's previous statements are "all inoperative."

Finally, a merciful Steve Holland of Reuters called an end to the interrogation. As McClellan turned to depart, CNN's Bob Franken asked if he could have one more question. McClellan paused, but Franken, reconsidering, waved the spokesman off.

"It's not worth it," he said.

Wow, sounds like arguing with N8.

 

[clancy98]

Edit: And Big oil and Haliburton ARE massive contributing factors in most decisons the Bush junta makes, so that's why it's banded around so much.

Hold on - let me find my Bush Junta membership card. I guess thats the problem I have, to you, I can't be a republican and NOT part of the Bush Junta.

So am I wrong?

 

[genpowell71]

I think that chang is just at his bush-bashing podium again.

I do agree that people in here throw the words liberal and conservative around WAYYY too much. I am guilty of it also. It really doesnt matter what your point on anything is. In here the majority of us ride bikes. Its kewl to not agree. As long as we can all go pound on our bikes, agree that its a great thing to do, and have a good time doing it.

 

[valve bouncer]

Hold on - let me find my Bush Junta membership card. I guess thats the problem I have, to you, I can't be a republican and NOT part of the Bush Junta.

So am I wrong?

Clancy of the Overflow mate, don't get too worked up. You're a frother, nothing wrong with that, you say your piece and it's worth a listen for the most part. There's not too many of us sitting on the fence mainly because you get knocked off pretty easily. Only Mike D and Andy do it well. It's a tough road to travel. Don't think that because frothers are Bush*tes for the most part that all frothers are. Equally don't think that all of us lefties are in Mike Moores back pocket. There are listeners on both sides. F*ck I don't listen much but ocassionally I do. Christ most do here. That's why we have a pretty good forum happening.

 

[clancy98]

ah come on VB I think even you have seen enough of my posts to know that THIS is not yet "worked up"...


Its just the irony of someone using the definition of my "tactics" AS a tactic to oppose me.


Kinda makes ya see how meainingless that word is, doesn't it?

 

[valve bouncer]

ah come on VB I think even you have seen enough of my posts to know that THIS is not yet "worked up"...


Its just the irony of someone using the definition of my "tactics" AS a tactic to oppose me.


Kinda makes ya see how meainingless that word is, doesn't it?

"Tactics" or "worked up" whaddya mean? Just sh*ttin ya there
Chang made a decent point there, take it up, unlike N8 at least you're capable.

 

[clancy98]

I know he did, and I was reeling for a minute. Tactics, I was referring to MikeD's post earlier.

Worked up -- I have been much more worked up in threads ie... billy corgan onion interview, or whatever thread it was that a certain person was low-blowing with divorce insults...

i can't say that anything said on here matters enough to affect my real life, because lord knows the monkey ain't it!

This is more of a mental diversion.

 

[Changleen]

Hold on - let me find my Bush Junta membership card. I guess thats the problem I have, to you, I can't be a republican and NOT part of the Bush Junta.

Yes you can. I think a lot of people on here are in exactly that situation - GenPowell for one. You can be like they are. It's OK to criticise Bush and propose an alternative that you like which is still 'conservative'.

Like in this case, it's pretty hard to defend Bush really, He's got a senior political advisor (Rove - otherwise known as "Bush's brain") who's been caught red handed disclosing the names of CIA agents to the press - Treason under US law - and despite making a direct statement that the White House would not tollerate such behaviour, they are. In fact they are clamming up right now and doing nothing. Hypocracy, and breaking some serious laws on the part of Mr. Rove, which means the White House is protecting a known criminal. Secondly you have to consider how likely it was that Rove did this in the first place without the consent and knowledge of others.

 

[MikeD]

Treason under US law

Nah, just a violation of the Intelligence Identities Act...

 

[Changleen]

Nah, just a violation of the Intelligence Identities Act...

Hmm, I read in several places that

The intentional disclosure of a covert CIA agent's identity would be an act of treason.

 

[Silver]

Treason gets thrown around way to much. Remember the one retard Congressman who thought that Bill Maher was treasonous because he made a joke about the army having recruited all the low hanging fruit?

Treason is a pretty specific crime (and a capital one at that) so let's not dilute it too much.

 

[MikeD]

Hmm, I read in several places that

Those places are full of ****. Remember the long discussion on treason that ensued with the recent terror arrests in the US? (which seem to have mysteriously dropped from the news...looks like it was all hyperbole...) I put the whole definition of treason up. This doesn't fit, as it's not specifically levying war against the US or providing aid and comfort to those who do.

http://67.19.50.55/forums/showthread.php?t=121618&page=1&highlight=treason

Calling it 'treasonous' behavior or calling Rove a traitor might be fine colloquially, but it's not legally accurate in my amateur assessment.

MD

 

[Changleen]

OK, Fair enough. We like accurate.