Karl Rove possibly tried for perjury?

[BBond]

Check it out. The A$$hat in Chief just crashed his bicycle again. What a moron.

I heard from an unnamed source that this time the idiot crashed when he heard the news that Cooper decided to testify. :laugh:

I hope the cop is OK. And I hope Bush is checked for alcohol and drug use, considering his priors.

Bush crashes into cop

Gleneagles - US President George W Bush collided with a local police officer during a bike ride on the grounds of the Gleneagles golf resort while attending a meeting of world leaders, the White House said on Wednesday.

Bush suffered scrapes on his hands and arms and the police officer was taken to a local hospital, said White House spokesperson Scott McClellan.

It was raining lightly at the time.

The extent of the policeman's injuries were not known, but he might have an ankle injury, he said.

The fall did not affect the president's schedule.

He went ahead with a dinner hosted by Queen Elizabeth II at the annual G8 economic summit, McClellan said.

The officer, who was on a security detail, is a member of the Strathclyde police department, McClellan said.

Bush has fallen on his bike before.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond
Check it out. The A$$hat in Chief just crashed his bicycle again. What a moron.

I heard from an unnamed source that this time the idiot crashed when he heard the news that Cooper decided to testify. :laugh:

I hope the cop is OK. And I hope Bush is checked for alcohol and drug use, considering his priors.

Bush crashes into cop

Gleneagles - US President George W Bush collided with a local police officer during a bike ride on the grounds of the Gleneagles golf resort while attending a meeting of world leaders, the White House said on Wednesday.

Bush suffered scrapes on his hands and arms and the police officer was taken to a local hospital, said White House spokesperson Scott McClellan.

It was raining lightly at the time.

The extent of the policeman's injuries were not known, but he might have an ankle injury, he said.

The fall did not affect the president's schedule.

He went ahead with a dinner hosted by Queen Elizabeth II at the annual G8 economic summit, McClellan said.

The officer, who was on a security detail, is a member of the Strathclyde police department, McClellan said.

Bush has fallen on his bike before.

Wow not only is this a repost, but it is completely off topic.

Good Job Ace

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond
Check it out. The A$$hat in Chief just crashed his bicycle again. What a moron.

I heard from an unnamed source that this time the idiot crashed when he heard the news that Cooper decided to testify. :laugh:

I hope the cop is OK. And I hope Bush is checked for alcohol and drug use, considering his priors.

Bush crashes into cop

Gleneagles - US President George W Bush collided with a local police officer during a bike ride on the grounds of the Gleneagles golf resort while attending a meeting of world leaders, the White House said on Wednesday.

Bush suffered scrapes on his hands and arms and the police officer was taken to a local hospital, said White House spokesperson Scott McClellan.

It was raining lightly at the time.

The extent of the policeman's injuries were not known, but he might have an ankle injury, he said.

The fall did not affect the president's schedule.

He went ahead with a dinner hosted by Queen Elizabeth II at the annual G8 economic summit, McClellan said.

The officer, who was on a security detail, is a member of the Strathclyde police department, McClellan said.

Bush has fallen on his bike before.

Wow not only is this a repost, but it is completely off topic.

Good Job Ace

I'll let you know when your opinion matters.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: BBond
Check it out. The A$$hat in Chief just crashed his bicycle again. What a moron.

/snip

it's statements like this that give liberals everwhere a bad name.

if you ride your bike a lot, you'll eventually crash once in awhile. and because he's the president of the united states, it makes the news.

it's in no way reflective of his intelligence or his ability to lead, so please take the trolling elsewhere :roll:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BBond
I'll let you know when your opinion matters.

We agree about this topic, and it matters to me, Bill. Please don't feed the trolls by sinking to their level. :roll:

 

[BBond]

Joe Wilson made a statement.

Wilson on reporter being jailed: Collateral damage in smear campaign

The following is a statement from Ambassador Joseph Wilson on the sentencing of New York Times Reporter Judith Miller to RAW STORY and Daily Kos' SusanG.

Miller has been sentenced to jail for not revealing her sources in reporting on the outing of Valerie Plame, a former covert CIA operative who is Wilson's wife.

The sentencing of Judith Miller to jail for refusing to disclose her sources is the direct result of the culture of unaccountability that infects the Bush White House from top to bottom. President Bush?s refusal to enforce his own call for full cooperation with the Special Counsel has brought us to this point. Clearly, the conspiracy to cover up the web of lies that underpinned the invasion of Iraq is more important to the White House than coming clean on a serious breach of national security. Thus has Ms Miller joined my wife, Valerie, and her twenty years of service to this nation as collateral damage in the smear campaign launched when I had the temerity to challenge the President on his assertion that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa.

The real victims of this cover-up, which may have turned criminal, are the Congress, the Constitution and, most tragically, the Americans and Iraqis who have paid the ultimate price for Bush?s folly.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFL. It's really interesting to note what Sir Chicken left out, from my prior post, for example:

• You dont know Plame wasn't a NOC, or that Brewster Jennings was no longer an effective cover. You have a few comments from unidentified sources with unknown agendas supporting your apologist bias, so you pounce on them like a starving dog on a scrap. It doesn't matter there is plenty of contradictory evidence. It doesn't matter that you are completely unqualified to assess the impact. You start with the conclusion that BushCo is innocent and reject all evidence to the contrary. You insist your partisan opinion is the one and only truth, and attack anyone who suggests otherwise.

More to the point (that's those things Chicken keeps avoiding), of course, is that gratuitous attacks are only one of many cards I play. I'm sure pretty most everyone here (except Chicken, of course) can remember dozens of threads where I desconstructed someone's claims point by point, directly addressing each one head on. I'm equally comfortable most people here know I don't run when challenged, a claim Chicken can only dream of. He's infamous for running away when his latest BS is soundly refuted.

Sorry, Sir Chicken, you'll have to do better than that. Oh, by the way, you still didn't address any points. Just another of your signature diversions.

Finger, you haven't made any points but are basing what little partisan ranting you have made in this thread on, as yet, unproven allegations.

What do you say above? Well let's deconstruct that?

Cool! Kudos for attempting to address people's points for a change. Let's see how you do.

You dont know Plame wasn't a NOC, or that Brewster Jennings was no longer an effective cover.

No, he doesn't know that for a fact. But he made a good case for it, which you just completely blew off and ignored because, well, Blowfinger says so and provided nothing that contradicts what he said besides your usual puffery. Points to Blowfinger for that comment = 0

Hmmm. Not off to a good start. Any chance you've actually read the thread? I know it's hard work, but if you do, you'll note there are a dozen or so links to different articles refuting your claims, not to mention a dozen or so more in the earlier thread I linked. Further, you might notice I never said Rove was certainly guilty, for example, or that Plame was still an active NOC. I just pointed out that you and your ilk are merely speculating otherwise, and are generally falling all over yourselves to find ever more twisted rationalizations why BushCo isn't guilty, but if they are, it wasn't as serious as those stupid libbies claim, etc. In short, you refuse to even consider that one or more people in the Bush administration may have committed an act of treason, potentially badly damaging America's security. I find it repugnant that you Bush apologists are so eager to put your mindless, partisan Bush worship before the best interests of America.

You have a few comments from unidentified sources with unknown agendas supporting your apologist bias, so you pounce on them like a starving dog on a scrap.

Funny how you dismiss the comments from unidentified sources on this issue without any proof whatsoever, yet you're more than willing to to support identified sources and those with a partisan agenda concerning Rove. Then you finish with a nice little gratuitous attack, likening the poster to a dog.

Points to Blowfinger for that "deconstruction" = 0

Oh dear, another dud. I did not dismiss anything. I simply pointed out it is merely one set of (anonymous) opinions, contradicted by many others. See the first sentence of my quote below, for example.

I'd tell you it was a nice try, but I'd be lying.

It doesn't matter there is plenty of contradictory evidence. It doesn't matter that you are completely unqualified to assess the impact. You start with the conclusion that BushCo is innocent and reject all evidence to the contrary. You insist your partisan opinion is the one and only truth, and attack anyone who suggests otherwise.

What contradictory evidence? You've show nothing so it's pure bluster and puffery yet again.

Reading is hard. It's hard work. Working hard.

(As I mentioned above, there are a dozen or so links to contradictory evidence in this thread, another dozen or so in the earlier thread I linked. Chicken is really flailing now.)

You are completely unqualiied to determine if the poster is qualified. You start with the conclusion that BushCo is guilty and reject anything or anyone that may comment to the contrary. Then you attack anyone that presents any commentary to the contrary and dismiss them with pure blowhard rhetoric that has absolutely ZERO content. Every one of your posts generally boils down to "Because I say so" and then goes on to a gratuitous personal attack, if you even get as far as puffing up and exclaiming "Because I say so."

Looks like you've been deconstructed, Finger.

0 points for you.

What a fascinating story. Too bad it's the same basic story you spew every time you get cornered in your own disinformation and hypocrisy (self-admitted, no less). Too bad there's no substance supporting it. Given your flaccid attempt to deconstruct each point, I see why you rarely attempt it. Stick with your blowhard (a/k/a "belligerent fvckwit") act; I'm no threat to your title.

Toodles.

 

[BBond]

On February 11, 2004, Bush told reporters, 'I want to know the truth.'

I hope he finally gets his wish.

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 Posted: 1:46 AM EST (0646 GMT)

Bush welcomes probe of CIA leak

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Tuesday he welcomes a Justice Department investigation into who revealed the classified identity of a CIA operative.

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

"I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job.

"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information."

Bush said he has told his administration to cooperate fully with the investigation and asked anyone with knowledge of the case to come forward.

 

[Bowfinger]

Found it, from much earlier in this thread:

Originally posted by: Aegeon
The Newsweek story is apparently accidently online on MSNBC's website early. It looks like things are really going to get going now. This is treasonous behavoir if accurate.

The Rove Factor?
Time magazine talked to Bush's guru for Plame story

By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek

July 11 issue - Its legal appeals exhausted, Time magazine agreed last week to turn over reporter Matthew Cooper's e-mails and computer notes to a special prosecutor investigating the leak of an undercover CIA agent's identity.

Now the story may be about to take another turn. The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove....

But according to Luskin, Rove's lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. "He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else," Luskin said. But one of the two lawyers representing a witness sympathetic to the White House told NEWSWEEK that there was growing "concern" in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove. Fitzgerald declined to comment.

In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the time that any suggestion that Rove had played a role in outing Plame was "totally ridiculous." On Oct. 10, McClellan was asked directly if Rove and two other White House aides had ever discussed Valerie Plame with any reporters. McClellan said he had spoken with all three, and "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

I thought I'd point this out, related to the new developments about Cooper getting a call from his source authorizing disclosure. According to the article above, Rove did also sign the blanket waiver for the grand jury.

 

[piasabird]

Innocent till proven guilty. Remember the witch hunt for president Clinton?

 

[Harvey]

Joe Wilson made a statement.The real victims of this cover-up, which may have turned criminal, are the Congress, the Constitution and, most tragically, the Americans and Iraqis who have paid the ultimate price for Bush?s folly.

Exactly! Thank you, Joe Wilson. :beer:

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
[ ... ]
As for you Bowfinger...

You dont know Plame wasn't a NOC, or that Brewster Jennings was no longer an effective cover. You have a few comments from unidentified sources with unknown agendas supporting your apologist bias, so you pounce on them like a starving dog on a scrap. It doesn't matter there is plenty of contradictory evidence. It doesn't matter that you are completely unqualified to assess the impact. You start with the conclusion that BushCo is innocent and reject all evidence to the contrary. You insist your partisan opinion is the one and only truth, and attack anyone who suggests otherwise.

I could say the exact same thing for you except that you are taking the opposite approach where Dubbya/Rove et. al. is automatically guilty. You don't know that she WAS a NOC when Novak wrote his column. You are every bit as unqualified to asses the impact as I am.

I take offense at the starving dog reference. I haven't been defending anyone here. As a matter of fact I've said that if it's true then there should be consequences.

I also don't see where I've been attacking anyone. I've advised you to use caution and to not work yourselves up into a rabid froth based on one unsubstantiated comment from one guy on a syndicated news show and that you might want to hold off on the celebration until all the facts come out. But I certainly haven't attacked anyone. ...

That might seem like a reasoned response ... out of context, when you conveniently omit your post to which I replied and ignore your posts before it. Let's look at what you said, however:

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
[ ... ]
Is this woman the Christ-like figure some are ginning her up to be? No.
Are the consequences for outing her as serious as some would like for us to believe? No.
Is this thing being blown wildly out of proportion for political purposes? Absolutely!

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
[ ... ]
Then we find out that the under cover agent was undercover in job title only and was really a 9-5er in Langly getting ready to start climbing the management ladder.

Then the press decides that the story isn't as juicy as they hoped since the outted CIA agent isn't really what she was initially said to be (and therefore isn't damaging ENOUGH to the administration to warrant the expediture of resources that would be required to finish the story).

With the exception of a few indignant lefties the story slowly fades away. Eventually a low level staffer is fired and a short apology from someone inconsequential is released late one Friday evening.

The whole episode morphs into urban legend...

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Who lost their life over this? What damage was done? ...

Finally, this is the post to which I replied:

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
This is a perfect example. You guys are making her out to be something that she wasn't when this happened. Outing a NOC is a terrible thing but that isn't what happened in this case. And that is a big reason why it's hard to take people like you seriously. You seem to think that it's OK to exaggerate the facts and twist reality so long as it furthers your argument. And if there is even the slightest possibility that Dubbya or anyone in his administration might have their feet held to the fire then you suspend the rules of truth and logic altogether. ...

I stand by what I said. You are NOT merely suggesting Rove might be innocent, or Plame might not be a NOC. You are stating both as facts and attacking anyone suggesting otherwise. You've posted one link to support your position (and it presented both sides, contrary to your one-sided excerpt); they've posted a dozen or more supporting theirs. That does NOT mean they're right and you're wrong, but it certainly demonstrates your assertions of fact are mere wishful thinking, at least for now.

By the way, I also welcome you to show me where I've stated Rove is definitely guilty. (Read carefully, the other Bush faithful tend to imagine words I did not write; wouldn't want you to suffer the same embarassment.) While I think it is consistent with typical Rove slime, there are plenty of other BushCo minions who are equally vile. For example, I know at least one earlier story pointed to Cheney's office.

What's your point? You want to get into a semantic argument over what language constitutes and attack vs. pointing out the facts?

You have insisted that Plame was undercover when somebody outed her (actually you went even further than that but I'll stick to the jist of things for brevity) and I say she wasn't. I haven't seen any of the stories posted (other than mine) that made any specific reference as to her function within the CIA in 2003. Even the quote from Melissa Boyle Mahle in the Times story, while sympathetic to Plame, didn't specifically state her function within the CIA in 2003.

I consider anyone who takes what looks like a petty game of political "gotcha" and turns it into treason and one of the most heinous breaches of national security ever to be twisting the facts. As far as I'm concerned that's just calling a spade a spade.

The questions I posed were just me challenging assertions that had been made. How is that an attack?

And then you quote me spitballing a potential timeline of events. I don't see an attack there either.

Ho hum... yawn... Back to fwapping over your Rove prison fantasy I suppose... Have fun.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Innocent till proven guilty. Remember the witch hunt for president Clinton?

I agree. Can we have $70M for an independent investigation?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFL. It's really interesting to note what Sir Chicken left out, from my prior post, for example:

• You dont know Plame wasn't a NOC, or that Brewster Jennings was no longer an effective cover. You have a few comments from unidentified sources with unknown agendas supporting your apologist bias, so you pounce on them like a starving dog on a scrap. It doesn't matter there is plenty of contradictory evidence. It doesn't matter that you are completely unqualified to assess the impact. You start with the conclusion that BushCo is innocent and reject all evidence to the contrary. You insist your partisan opinion is the one and only truth, and attack anyone who suggests otherwise.

More to the point (that's those things Chicken keeps avoiding), of course, is that gratuitous attacks are only one of many cards I play. I'm sure pretty most everyone here (except Chicken, of course) can remember dozens of threads where I desconstructed someone's claims point by point, directly addressing each one head on. I'm equally comfortable most people here know I don't run when challenged, a claim Chicken can only dream of. He's infamous for running away when his latest BS is soundly refuted.

Sorry, Sir Chicken, you'll have to do better than that. Oh, by the way, you still didn't address any points. Just another of your signature diversions.

Finger, you haven't made any points but are basing what little partisan ranting you have made in this thread on, as yet, unproven allegations.

What do you say above? Well let's deconstruct that?

Cool! Kudos for attempting to address people's points for a change. Let's see how you do.

You dont know Plame wasn't a NOC, or that Brewster Jennings was no longer an effective cover.

No, he doesn't know that for a fact. But he made a good case for it, which you just completely blew off and ignored because, well, Blowfinger says so and provided nothing that contradicts what he said besides your usual puffery. Points to Blowfinger for that comment = 0

Hmmm. Not off to a good start. Any chance you've actually read the thread? I know it's hard work, but if you do, you'll note there are a dozen or so links to different articles refuting your claims, not to mention a dozen or so more in the earlier thread I linked. Further, you might notice I never said Rove was certainly guilty, for example, or that Plame was still an active NOC. I just pointed out that you and your ilk are merely speculating otherwise, and are generally falling all over yourselves to find ever more twisted rationalizations why BushCo isn't guilty, but if they are, it wasn't as serious as those stupid libbies claim, etc. In short, you refuse to even consider that one or more people in the Bush administration may have committed an act of treason, potentially badly damaging America's security. I find it repugnant that you Bush apologists are so eager to put your mindless, partisan Bush worship before the best interests of America.

You have a few comments from unidentified sources with unknown agendas supporting your apologist bias, so you pounce on them like a starving dog on a scrap.

Funny how you dismiss the comments from unidentified sources on this issue without any proof whatsoever, yet you're more than willing to to support identified sources and those with a partisan agenda concerning Rove. Then you finish with a nice little gratuitous attack, likening the poster to a dog.

Points to Blowfinger for that "deconstruction" = 0

Oh dear, another dud. I did not dismiss anything. I simply pointed out it is merely one set of (anonymous) opinions, contradicted by many others. See the first sentence of my quote below, for example.

I'd tell you it was a nice try, but I'd be lying.

It doesn't matter there is plenty of contradictory evidence. It doesn't matter that you are completely unqualified to assess the impact. You start with the conclusion that BushCo is innocent and reject all evidence to the contrary. You insist your partisan opinion is the one and only truth, and attack anyone who suggests otherwise.

What contradictory evidence? You've show nothing so it's pure bluster and puffery yet again.

Reading is hard. It's hard work. Working hard.

(As I mentioned above, there are a dozen or so links to contradictory evidence in this thread, another dozen or so in the earlier thread I linked. Chicken is really flailing now.)

You are completely unqualiied to determine if the poster is qualified. You start with the conclusion that BushCo is guilty and reject anything or anyone that may comment to the contrary. Then you attack anyone that presents any commentary to the contrary and dismiss them with pure blowhard rhetoric that has absolutely ZERO content. Every one of your posts generally boils down to "Because I say so" and then goes on to a gratuitous personal attack, if you even get as far as puffing up and exclaiming "Because I say so."

Looks like you've been deconstructed, Finger.

0 points for you.

What a fascinating story. Too bad it's the same basic story you spew every time you get cornered in your own disinformation and hypocrisy (self-admitted, no less). Too bad there's no substance supporting it. Given your flaccid attempt to deconstruct each point, I see why you rarely attempt it. Stick with your blowhard (a/k/a "belligerent fvckwit") act; I'm no threat to your title.

Toodles.

And Bowfinger expends a lot of hot air proving nothing and saying nothing once again, obviously using all the nothing as a prop to end with his usual ad hom flourish.

Unsurprising.

Back to the topic: I'd be surprised if it was Rove as well. If he is the guilty one and did permit Cooper to come clean, at least he can be lauded for being a man about it.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: piasabird
Innocent till proven guilty. Remember the witch hunt for president Clinton?

I agree. Can we have $70M for an independent investigation?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
What's your point? You want to get into a semantic argument over what language constitutes and attack vs. pointing out the facts?

My point is that your reply was, shall we say, a bit disingenuous. My point is that, contrary to your bellicose assertions, you were NOT pointing out facts, you were merely offering one set of anonymous opinions. My point is that you were doing exactly what you attacked your opponents for doing.

You have insisted that Plame was undercover when somebody outed her

Really? Show me where. I won't hold my breath.

(actually you went even further than that but I'll stick to the jist of things for brevity) and I say she wasn't. I haven't seen any of the stories posted (other than mine) that made any specific reference as to her function within the CIA in 2003. Even the quote from Melissa Boyle Mahle in the Times story, while sympathetic to Plame, didn't specifically state her function within the CIA in 2003.

Read the links provided in this thread, and in the earlier thread I linked. The information is out there ... now.

I consider anyone who takes what looks like a petty game of political "gotcha" and turns it into treason and one of the most heinous breaches of national security ever to be twisting the facts. As far as I'm concerned that's just calling a spade a spade.

The questions I posed were just me challenging assertions that had been made. How is that an attack?

And then you quote me spitballing a potential timeline of events. I don't see an attack there either.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to the words you use, especially the insults you sprinkle around. For example:

Ho hum... yawn... Back to fwapping over your Rove prison fantasy I suppose... Have fun.

I'll be the first to admit I'd love to see Rove brought down. He is a malignant influence on American politics. Nonetheless, I never claimed with certainty that he was the leaker.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: piasabird
Innocent till proven guilty. Remember the witch hunt for president Clinton?

I agree. Can we have $70M for an independent investigation?

The Propagandist wouldn't authorize but $10 million for an investigation into the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history. No way we'll see an independent investigation on this or on impeaching the Propagandist as long as the GOP stranglehold on power exists.


But, I do wonder if Karen Hughes is the 2nd WH official mentioned by Cooper.

 

[Genx87]

I'll be the first to admit I'd love to see Rove brought down. He is a malignant influence on American politics. Nonetheless, I never claimed with certainty that he was the leaker.

I think you want Rove to go down because he has basically handed the democrats their arse on a few occassions.

Here is a clue for the democratic leadership. Rove is retiring thus if you nail him you arent doing much of anything to the republican party. Find the next Rove and nail him before he smacks you around.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And Bowfinger expends a lot of hot air proving nothing and saying nothing once again, ...

Sorry, that would be you, Chuckles. I factually demonstrated -- again -- most everything you said was wrong, outright lies at worst, diversions at best. Once again you lack the integrity to admit you were wrong. Never, ever, ever ... about anything. Must be some powerful denial drugs they put in that Kool-Aid you Bushies inhale.

 

[eilute]

I wouldn't have instinctively called this treason, although it appears that whoever is responible for the Plame leak is more loyal to the President than he is to his country. For some reason, I don't think that the leaker will be charged with treason. Not under this administration.

I do think that it is definitely an abuse of power.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I'll be the first to admit I'd love to see Rove brought down. He is a malignant influence on American politics. Nonetheless, I never claimed with certainty that he was the leaker.

I think you want Rove to go down because he has basically handed the democrats their arse on a few occassions.

Nice try, but I'm an independent. I first started loathing Rove when his anti-McCain smear campaign was revealed. As far as I'm concerned, the man is evil, and that's true no matter which party he's working for.

Here is a clue for the democratic leadership. Rove is retiring thus if you nail him you arent doing much of anything to the republican party. Find the next Rove and nail him before he smacks you around.

It's not about the Republican Party. It's about justice. It's about discouraging future slime balls from adopting his win-at-literally-any-cost mindset. I'm an old-fashioned guy who still believes honor and integrity are more important than winning.

 

[dahunan]

It would be nice if robe had to spend his retirement in prison or in uniform in Iraq

 

[Genx87]

It's not about the Republican Party. It's about justice. It's about discouraging future slime balls from adopting his win-at-literally-any-cost mindset. I'm an old-fashioned guy who still believes honor and integrity are more important than winning.

There is nothing like that in politics.

Sorry.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87

It's not about the Republican Party. It's about justice. It's about discouraging future slime balls from adopting his win-at-literally-any-cost mindset. I'm an old-fashioned guy who still believes honor and integrity are more important than winning.

There is nothing like that in politics.

Sorry.

Me too. Even more sorry so many people are willing to accept this as inevitable and acceptable. We'll never get better politics unless we demand better. Flushing excrement like Rove is a start (which I consider true regardless of whether he's the one who compromised Plame's cover).

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

It's not about the Republican Party. It's about justice. It's about discouraging future slime balls from adopting his win-at-literally-any-cost mindset. I'm an old-fashioned guy who still believes honor and integrity are more important than winning.

There is nothing like that in politics.

Sorry.

...and when it's found it's immediately scrubbed out.