So...... how 'bout that tom delay and his arrest warrant
No Karl Rove Bashing today..???
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
MMike said:
I think that one will go no where as well since the democratic state att'y is making it pretty clear it is a politically motivated witchhunt.
Yeah obstruction of justice and perjury aren't that big a deal. Interesting how perceptions change depending on the target.N8 said:
DRB said:
Ok, I admit... I'm just messing with y'all.... if he guilty, let him go to jail for it. But let's have a trial first.
Again I find it interesting how perceptions change depending on the investigation target.N8 said:
Time for the media/Liberals to apologize to Mr. Rove...
One Leak and a Flood of Silliness
By David S. Broder
Thursday, September 7, 2006
Conspiracy theories flourish in politics, and most of them have no more basis than spring training hopes for the Chicago Cubs.
Whenever things turn dicey for Republicans, they complain about the "liberal media" sabotaging them. And when Democrats get in a jam, they take up Hillary Clinton's warnings about a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
For much of the past five years, dark suspicions have been voiced about the Bush White House undermining its critics, and Karl Rove has been fingered as the chief culprit in this supposed plot to suppress the opposition.
Now at least one count in that indictment has been substantially weakened -- the charge that Rove masterminded a conspiracy to discredit Iraq intelligence critic Joseph Wilson by "outing" his CIA-operative wife, Valerie Plame.
I have written almost nothing about the Wilson-Plame case, because it seemed overblown to me from the start. Wilson's claim in a New York Times op-ed about his memo on the supposed Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger; the Robert D. Novak column naming Plame as the person who had recommended Wilson to check up on the reported sale; the call for a special prosecutor and the lengthy interrogation that led to the jailing of Judith Miller of the New York Times and the deposition of several other reporters; and, finally, the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff -- all of this struck me as being a tempest in a teapot.
No one behaved well in the whole mess -- not Wilson, not Libby, not special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and not the reporters involved.
The only time I commented on the case was to caution reporters who offered bold First Amendment defenses for keeping their sources' names secret that they had better examine the motivations of the people leaking the information to be sure they deserve protection.
But caution has been notably lacking in some of the press treatment of this subject -- especially when it comes to Karl Rove. And it behooves us in the media to examine that behavior, not just sweep it under the rug.
Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton and now a columnist for several publications, has just published a book titled, "How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime." It is a collection of his columns for Salon, including one originally published on July 14, 2005, titled "Rove's War."
It was occasioned by the disclosure of a memo from Time magazine's Matt Cooper, saying that Rove had confirmed to him the identity of Valerie Plame. To Blumenthal, that was proof that this "was political payback against Wilson by a White House that wanted to shift the public focus from the Iraq War to Wilson's motives."
Then Blumenthal went off on a rant: "While the White House stonewalls, Rove has license to run his own damage control operation. His surrogates argue that if Rove did anything, it wasn't a crime. . . . Rove is fighting his war as though it will be settled in a court of Washington pundits. Brandishing his formidable political weapons, he seeks to demonstrate his prowess once again. His corps of agents raises a din in which their voices drown out individual dissidents. His frantic massing of forces dominates the capital by winning the communications battle. Indeed, Rove may succeed momentarily in quelling the storm. But the stillness may be illusory. Before the prosecutor, Rove's arsenal is useless."
In fact, the prosecutor concluded that there was no crime; hence, no indictment. And we now know that the original "leak," in casual conversations with reporters Novak and Bob Woodward, came not from the conspiracy theorists' target in the White House but from the deputy secretary of state at the time, Richard Armitage, an esteemed member of the Washington establishment and no pal of Rove or President Bush.
Blumenthal's example is far from unique. Newsweek, in a July 25, 2005, cover story on Rove, after dutifully noting that Rove's lawyer said the prosecutor had told him that Rove was not a target of the investigation, added: "But this isn't just about the Facts, it's about what Rove's foes regard as a higher Truth: That he is a one-man epicenter of a narrative of Evil."
And in the American Prospect's cover story for August 2005, Joe Conason wrote that Rove "is a powerful bully. Fear of retribution has stifled those who might have revealed his secrets. He has enjoyed the impunity of a malefactor who could always claim, however implausibly, deniability -- until now."
These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.
One Leak and a Flood of Silliness
By David S. Broder
Thursday, September 7, 2006
Conspiracy theories flourish in politics, and most of them have no more basis than spring training hopes for the Chicago Cubs.
Whenever things turn dicey for Republicans, they complain about the "liberal media" sabotaging them. And when Democrats get in a jam, they take up Hillary Clinton's warnings about a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
For much of the past five years, dark suspicions have been voiced about the Bush White House undermining its critics, and Karl Rove has been fingered as the chief culprit in this supposed plot to suppress the opposition.
Now at least one count in that indictment has been substantially weakened -- the charge that Rove masterminded a conspiracy to discredit Iraq intelligence critic Joseph Wilson by "outing" his CIA-operative wife, Valerie Plame.
I have written almost nothing about the Wilson-Plame case, because it seemed overblown to me from the start. Wilson's claim in a New York Times op-ed about his memo on the supposed Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger; the Robert D. Novak column naming Plame as the person who had recommended Wilson to check up on the reported sale; the call for a special prosecutor and the lengthy interrogation that led to the jailing of Judith Miller of the New York Times and the deposition of several other reporters; and, finally, the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff -- all of this struck me as being a tempest in a teapot.
No one behaved well in the whole mess -- not Wilson, not Libby, not special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and not the reporters involved.
The only time I commented on the case was to caution reporters who offered bold First Amendment defenses for keeping their sources' names secret that they had better examine the motivations of the people leaking the information to be sure they deserve protection.
But caution has been notably lacking in some of the press treatment of this subject -- especially when it comes to Karl Rove. And it behooves us in the media to examine that behavior, not just sweep it under the rug.
Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton and now a columnist for several publications, has just published a book titled, "How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime." It is a collection of his columns for Salon, including one originally published on July 14, 2005, titled "Rove's War."
It was occasioned by the disclosure of a memo from Time magazine's Matt Cooper, saying that Rove had confirmed to him the identity of Valerie Plame. To Blumenthal, that was proof that this "was political payback against Wilson by a White House that wanted to shift the public focus from the Iraq War to Wilson's motives."
Then Blumenthal went off on a rant: "While the White House stonewalls, Rove has license to run his own damage control operation. His surrogates argue that if Rove did anything, it wasn't a crime. . . . Rove is fighting his war as though it will be settled in a court of Washington pundits. Brandishing his formidable political weapons, he seeks to demonstrate his prowess once again. His corps of agents raises a din in which their voices drown out individual dissidents. His frantic massing of forces dominates the capital by winning the communications battle. Indeed, Rove may succeed momentarily in quelling the storm. But the stillness may be illusory. Before the prosecutor, Rove's arsenal is useless."
In fact, the prosecutor concluded that there was no crime; hence, no indictment. And we now know that the original "leak," in casual conversations with reporters Novak and Bob Woodward, came not from the conspiracy theorists' target in the White House but from the deputy secretary of state at the time, Richard Armitage, an esteemed member of the Washington establishment and no pal of Rove or President Bush.
Blumenthal's example is far from unique. Newsweek, in a July 25, 2005, cover story on Rove, after dutifully noting that Rove's lawyer said the prosecutor had told him that Rove was not a target of the investigation, added: "But this isn't just about the Facts, it's about what Rove's foes regard as a higher Truth: That he is a one-man epicenter of a narrative of Evil."
And in the American Prospect's cover story for August 2005, Joe Conason wrote that Rove "is a powerful bully. Fear of retribution has stifled those who might have revealed his secrets. He has enjoyed the impunity of a malefactor who could always claim, however implausibly, deniability -- until now."
These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.
Did you read this Slate article on the subject?
Sorry Karl. I guess you aren't as much of a
as we all thought. My aplologies.
In simpler terms, the Whitehouse knew all along whodunit and yet wasted the taxpayer's funds on a grand jury investigation.
Sorry Karl. I guess you aren't as much of a
as we all thought. My aplologies.
n00zweek
but since you're holding that torch of accountability, are you going to get scooter libby his job back? didn't think so.
...back to $leep
or in more [sic] simpler terms, they didn't
but since you're holding that torch of accountability, are you going to get scooter libby his job back? didn't think so.
...back to $leep
Wake up! Did you read the Newsweek article you linked? Powell was a member of the Whitehouse staff, and he knew Armitage was the guy and decided to hold back the info.
It also states that Rove confirmed the ID to Novak and Cooper (which seems just as serious as the initial leak to me):
And it states that Libby cooked his own goose:
no, powell was the sec of state, which is hardly a staff position. it is a cabinet position, 4th in succession to the presidency, which could be used to manufacture more feigned outrage, except that powell is inconveniently the left's favourite anti-bush pawn. are you not disturbed that the left wanted to hang scooter for what they (incorrectly) believed was his role & what he knew, yet are now mum to know it was the enemy-of-their-enemy? seems all too obvious now the hysterical left isn't on the side of truth on this topic, as they are now shown for all to see what so many of us have known along: they are peddlers in patter
please don't be alarmed if you're not considered for appointment to the position of special prosecutor
sorry, explain "indictment" to me again, & as it relates to the 14th amendment. as it stands now, he's not been convicted, nor has he plead out.
jesus, you have resurrected.
nothing to see there...move along...
Did you read that editorial before you linked it?
Blame the victim much?
"He should have known that bringing to light a legitimate gripe against the administration would cause them to dig through his files and look for a way to punish him, therefore it is Wilson's own fault that Plame was outed."
Hey, its nice to have someone who can actually put together an entire paragraph to debate with. Let's Roll!
So in fact, the indictment doesn't really have anything to do with his job. It does not mean that he:
When I used the word staff, I was using it in a generic sense, not a specific one. Anyone in the succession line to the presidency is a staff member by that definition. And regardless of the definition, there is no argument to the fact that Powell was certainly close enough to the Whitehouse to be in a position to share the truth.
hmmm. I don't consider myself left or right. I like to think of myself as an independent. I am indeed disturbed by the quiet on this matter.
I know that the law on this matter had to do with deliberately exposing clasified information (do you have link to the details? It has been a while for me.). Intent played a big part as I recall as well. Anyhow, IANAL and I merely expressed the opinion that I thought it was just as bad to confirm the identity of an undercover agent as it is to reveal that identity in the first place. But that is just my opinion.
The 14th amendment states (in part):
But as an employee, Scooter was not deprived of anything by the state, but rather, he resigned from his employment.
So in fact, the indictment doesn't really have anything to do with his job. It does not mean that he:
but rather that he has been charged with doing so.
The Last Remake of Beau Geste style vinking funeral..???
Beau Geste (age 12): A Viking funeral...Digby, will you set fire to me and bury me at sea?
Digby Geste (age 12): Well, alright...but not until you're dead.