Karl Rove possibly tried for perjury?

Page 53 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

It sure sounds like she was deliberately campaigning for her husband to go on that trip.

It sounds like she offered to talk to her husband, who had vast experience and numerous contacts in the region, to handle a sensitive task. He already had clearance and years of government experience. He was the best person for the job.

You know, chicken, Niger isn't the kind of place people rush to during certain seasons. There is an account posted in this thread, IIRC, from Joe Wilson depicting Niger in all of its sand-blasting glory, relentless sandstorms force everyone to cover their entire bodies other than their eyes when outdoors.

Wilson did the work pro bono and he brought back the correct information about those bogus, counterfeit documents on the yellow cake sale that not only never happened but in fact was never even discussed.

Proletariat is right. If you weren't such a partisan POS you'd be asking about who forged those documents in the first place and why Bush was in such a hurry to believe the fraud. Instead you attack Joe Wilson for doing the nation a service.

You're not even a chicken. You're a cHACKen.


 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Damn I'm really pissed now I don't even care.

Do you ever shutup you annoying twat?
Awww. One of the pontificators of freedom of speech, expression, opposing viewpoints, and dissidence speaks up yet again.

You're such a damn liar. At least admit you're a Republican. Instead you pull this WHINEY ANNOYING OH-I'M-A-CONVERTED-LIBERAL SH!T. Thats just what it is dude. SH!T. The amount of bile you spread against the left is a clear reminder that you are just as right wing as any of the other extremist Talibanis here.
Can't stand have one of your own - and one who you can't slime as some right-wing religious nutjob and take your collective hatchets to, like you successfully did against Riprorin and various other right-wingers whose opinions you just can't tolerate in this forum - demonstrate the lunacy of the looper left, eh?

Well thanks for your complete and utter demonstration of peace, love, and understanding, dude. It's what the left is all about, ain't it? It was really sweet of you. :lips:
Oh please. Give me a break. I never attacked Riprorin, CAD or Crimson. In fact I supported their reinstatement.

All I'm telling you is be a man. Be real. Stop lying.

You don't even know who you are.
So what would qualify me as a Republican?

Would it be the fact that I'm pro-Choice? Or maybe it would be my support for gay marriage? Or possibly my agnostic religious beliefs? Could it be my pro-legalization of pot stance?

I know exactly who I am. You don't.
You're a neo-con which is a Republican in my book. You're supporting Rove when hes obviously done something very suspicious. Just be glad the Supreme Court nomination and the violence that is playing out across the world has taken the focus off of your buddy.
I'm a liberal hawk, not a neocon. But if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to call me a neocon, whatever.

And I really couldn't give two flips and a golf clap about Rove. The Republicans have a mountain of guys that are just as bad, or worse, than Rove. Go ahead and railroad him on out. His replacement could be even more insidious.

So be careful what you wish for.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
More Frank Rich making more sense.

Eight Days in July

By FRANK RICH
Published: July 24, 2005

PRESIDENT BUSH'S new Supreme Court nominee was a historic first after all: the first to be announced on TV dead center in prime time, smack in the cross hairs of "I Want to Be a Hilton." It was also one of the hastiest court announcements in memory, abruptly sprung a week ahead of the White House's original timetable. The agenda of this rushed showmanship - to change the subject in Washington - could not have been more naked. But the president would have had to nominate Bill Clinton to change this subject.

When a conspiracy is unraveling, and it's every liar and his lawyer for themselves, the story takes on a momentum of its own. When the conspiracy is, at its heart, about the White House's twisting of the intelligence used to sell the American people a war - and its desperate efforts to cover up that flimflam once the W.M.D. cupboard proved bare and the war went south - the story will not end until the war really is in its "last throes."

Only 36 hours after the John Roberts unveiling, The Washington Post nudged him aside to second position on its front page. Leading the paper instead was a scoop concerning a State Department memo circulated the week before the outing of Joseph Wilson's wife, the C.I.A. officer Valerie Plame, in literally the loftiest reaches of the Bush administration - on Air Force One. The memo, The Post reported, marked the paragraph containing information about Ms. Plame with an S for secret. So much for the cover story that no one knew that her identity was covert.

But the scandal has metastasized so much at this point that the forgotten man Mr. Bush did not nominate to the Supreme Court is as much a window into the White House's panic and stonewalling as its haste to put forward the man he did. When the president decided not to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with a woman, why did he pick a white guy and not nominate the first Hispanic justice, his friend Alberto Gonzales? Mr. Bush was surely not scared off by Gonzales critics on the right (who find him soft on abortion) or left (who find him soft on the Geneva Conventions). It's Mr. Gonzales's proximity to this scandal that inspires real fear.

As White House counsel, he was the one first notified that the Justice Department, at the request of the C.I.A., had opened an investigation into the outing of Joseph Wilson's wife. That notification came at 8:30 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2003, but it took Mr. Gonzales 12 more hours to inform the White House staff that it must "preserve all materials" relevant to the investigation. This 12-hour delay, he has said, was sanctioned by the Justice Department, but since the department was then run by John Ashcroft, a Bush loyalist who refused to recuse himself from the Plame case, inquiring Senate Democrats would examine this 12-hour delay as closely as an 18½-minute tape gap. "Every good prosecutor knows that any delay could give a culprit time to destroy the evidence," said Senator Charles Schumer, correctly, back when the missing 12 hours was first revealed almost two years ago. A new Gonzales confirmation process now would have quickly devolved into a neo-Watergate hearing. Mr. Gonzales was in the thick of the Plame investigation, all told, for 16 months.

Thus is Mr. Gonzales's Supreme Court aspiration the first White House casualty of this affair. It won't be the last. When you look at the early timeline of this case, rather than the latest investigatory scraps, two damning story lines emerge and both have legs.

The first: for half a year White House hands made the fatal mistake of thinking they could get away with trashing the Wilsons scot-free. They thought so because for nearly three months after the July 6, 2003, publication of Mr. Wilson's New York Times Op-Ed article and the outing of his wife in a Robert Novak column, there was no investigation at all. Once the unthreatening Ashcroft-controlled investigation began, there was another comfy three months.

Only after that did Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel, take over and put the heat on. Only after that did investigators hustle to seek Air Force One phone logs and did Mr. Bush feel compelled to hire a private lawyer. But by then the conspirators, drunk with the hubris characteristic of this administration, had already been quite careless.

It was during that pre-Fitzgerald honeymoon that Scott McClellan declared that both Karl Rove and Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, had personally told him they were "not involved in this" - neither leaking any classified information nor even telling any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the C.I.A. Matt Cooper has now written in Time that it was through his "conversation with Rove" that he "learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A." Maybe it all depends on what the meaning of "telling," "involved" or "this" is. If these people were similarly cute with F.B.I. agents and the grand jury, they've got an obstruction-of-justice problem possibly more grave than the hard-to-prosecute original charge of knowingly outing a covert agent.

Most fertile - and apparently ground zero for Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation - is the period at the very outset when those plotting against Mr. Wilson felt safest of all: those eight days in July 2003 between the Wilson Op-Ed, which so infuriated the administration, and the retaliatory Novak column. It was during that long week, on a presidential trip to Africa, that Colin Powell was seen on Air Force One brandishing the classified State Department memo mentioning Valerie Plame, as first reported by The New York Times.

That memo may have been the genesis of an orchestrated assault on the Wilsons. That the administration was then cocky enough and enraged enough to go after its presumed enemies so systematically can be found in a similar, now forgotten attack that was hatched on July 15, the day after the publication of Mr. Novak's column portraying Mr. Wilson as a girlie man dependent on his wife for employment.

On that evening's broadcast of ABC's "World News Tonight," American soldiers in Falluja spoke angrily of how their tour of duty had been extended yet again, only a week after Donald Rumsfeld told them they were going home. Soon the Drudge Report announced that ABC's correspondent, Jeffrey Kofman, was gay. Matt Drudge told Lloyd Grove of The Washington Post at the time that "someone from the White House communications shop" had given him that information.

Mr. McClellan denied White House involvement with any Kofman revelation, a denial now worth as much as his denials of White House involvement with the trashing of the Wilsons. Identifying someone as gay isn't a crime in any event, but the "outing" of Mr. Kofman (who turned out to be openly gay) almost simultaneously with the outing of Ms. Plame points to a pervasive culture of revenge in the White House and offers a clue as to who might be driving it. As Joshua Green reported in detail in The Atlantic Monthly last year, a recurring feature of Mr. Rove's political campaigns throughout his career has been the questioning of an "opponent's sexual orientation."

The second narrative to be unearthed in the scandal's early timeline is the motive for this reckless vindictiveness against anyone questioning the war. On May 1, 2003, Mr. Bush celebrated "Mission Accomplished." On May 29, Mr. Bush announced that "we found the weapons of mass destruction." On July 2, as attacks increased on American troops, Mr. Bush dared the insurgents to "bring 'em on." But the mission was not accomplished, the weapons were not found and the enemy kept bringing 'em on. It was against this backdrop of mounting desperation on July 6 that Mr. Wilson went public with his incriminating claim that the most potent argument for the war in the first place, the administration's repeated intimations of nuclear Armageddon, involved twisted intelligence.

Mr. Wilson's charge had such force that just three days after its publication, Mr. Bush radically revised his language about W.M.D.'s. Saddam no longer had W.M.D.'s; he had a W.M.D. "program." Right after that George Tenet suddenly decided to release a Friday-evening statement saying that the 16 errant words about African uranium "should never have been included" in the January 2003 State of the Union address - even though those 16 words could and should have been retracted months earlier. By the next State of the Union, in January 2004, Mr. Bush would retreat completely, talking not about finding W.M.D.'s or even W.M.D. programs, but about "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

In July 2005, there are still no W.M.D.'s, and we're still waiting to hear the full story of how, in the words of the Downing Street memo, the intelligence was fixed to foretell all those imminent mushroom clouds in the run-up to war in Iraq. The two official investigations into America's prewar intelligence have both found that our intelligence was wrong, but neither has answered the question of how the administration used that wrong intelligence in selling the war. That issue was pointedly kept out of the charter of the Silberman-Robb commission; the Senate Intelligence Committee promised to get to it after the election but conspicuously has not.

The real crime here remains the sending of American men and women to Iraq on fictitious grounds. Without it, there wouldn't have been a third-rate smear campaign against an obscure diplomat, a bungled cover-up and a scandal that - like the war itself - has no exit strategy that will not inflict pain.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
CIA's Tenet was 'furious' over leak, Schumer says

Former agency chief called Justice Dept. to investigate
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050723/1063162.asp
WASHINGTON - Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., revealed Friday that two years ago he discussed the blown cover of CIA operative Valerie Plame with then CIA director George Tenet and that Tenet "was furious."

Tenet promptly called the Justice Department to demand an investigation into who in the Bush administration leaked Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak, Schumer said at a hearing held by House and Senate Democrats.


Novak revealed Plame's identity in July 2003 in a column in which he said she played a key role in having her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, sent to Niger to investigate reports that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had tried to buy materials for a nuclear weapon there.

The Democratic panel heard from five former CIA operatives who said the disclosure of Plame's classified identity was a breach of the law that forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer and a violation of trust that has harmed America's intelligence-gathering capabilities.

"What is important now is not who wins or loses the political battle or who may or may not be indicted," said Jim Marcinkowski, a central intelligence agent in the 1980s.

"Rather, it is a question of how we will go about protecting the citizens of this country in a very dangerous world. The undisputed fact is that we have irreparably damaged our capability to collect human intelligence and thereby significantly diminished our capability to protect the American people."

Another former CIA operative, Larry Johnson, said "we must put to bed the lie that (Plame) was not undercover. For starters, if she had not been undercover, then the CIA would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department."

Johnson said that "despite the repeated claims of representatives for the Republican National Committee, the Wilsons' neighbors did not know where Valerie really worked until Novak's op-ed appeared."

Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., said Bush is "affirmatively" required by several presidential directives to discipline any official in his administration who had a role in leaking classified information.

Bush cannot wait for an indictment and trial to determine whether leakers committed a crime, Waxman said. Presidential directives mandate he discipline all who had a role.

Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper has revealed that Bush's deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr., had told him that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency.

Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency but has said through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name.

Bush, who once said he would discipline anyone who leaked the information, now says he will wait to see who is convicted in the investigation run by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-Fairport, said at worst the leak is treason and at best, an abuse of power.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
CIA's Tenet was 'furious' over leak, Schumer says

Former agency chief called Justice Dept. to investigate
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050723/1063162.asp
WASHINGTON - Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., revealed Friday that two years ago he discussed the blown cover of CIA operative Valerie Plame with then CIA director George Tenet and that Tenet "was furious."

Tenet promptly called the Justice Department to demand an investigation into who in the Bush administration leaked Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak, Schumer said at a hearing held by House and Senate Democrats.


Novak revealed Plame's identity in July 2003 in a column in which he said she played a key role in having her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, sent to Niger to investigate reports that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had tried to buy materials for a nuclear weapon there.

The Democratic panel heard from five former CIA operatives who said the disclosure of Plame's classified identity was a breach of the law that forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer and a violation of trust that has harmed America's intelligence-gathering capabilities.

"What is important now is not who wins or loses the political battle or who may or may not be indicted," said Jim Marcinkowski, a central intelligence agent in the 1980s.

"Rather, it is a question of how we will go about protecting the citizens of this country in a very dangerous world. The undisputed fact is that we have irreparably damaged our capability to collect human intelligence and thereby significantly diminished our capability to protect the American people."

Another former CIA operative, Larry Johnson, said "we must put to bed the lie that (Plame) was not undercover. For starters, if she had not been undercover, then the CIA would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department."

Johnson said that "despite the repeated claims of representatives for the Republican National Committee, the Wilsons' neighbors did not know where Valerie really worked until Novak's op-ed appeared."

Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., said Bush is "affirmatively" required by several presidential directives to discipline any official in his administration who had a role in leaking classified information.

Bush cannot wait for an indictment and trial to determine whether leakers committed a crime, Waxman said. Presidential directives mandate he discipline all who had a role.

Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper has revealed that Bush's deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr., had told him that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency.

Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency but has said through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name.

Bush, who once said he would discipline anyone who leaked the information, now says he will wait to see who is convicted in the investigation run by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-Fairport, said at worst the leak is treason and at best, an abuse of power.

That would explain his resignation and Bush giving him the Medal of Freedom to "smooth things over".
 

TRUMPHENT

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2001
1,414
0
0
Can you imagine what went through Tenet's mind when he had to resign and yet was the one that officially demanded the investigation? Novak's column was supposed to cause an uproar in the CIA community, active and retired. 30 pieces of sliver were melted down into one gold medal.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Well you seem to be implying that lack of an NDA permits someone to release classified, secret information after being provided a security clearance to garner that information.

Got any proof that's permissible?
If not, what's Rove and Libby's excuse?
I know exactly who I am. You don't.
Best news I've had all week.
And I really couldn't give two flips and a golf clap about Rove. The Republicans have a mountain of guys that are just as bad, or worse, than Rove. Go ahead and railroad him on out. His replacement could be even more insidious.

So be careful what you wish for.
What I wish is that the investigation proves who was involved in the leak and sends them packing, preferably with a good supply of striped pajamas.

There is no "liberal" or "conservative" slant on this. Regardless of the nickel-dime details of the law, whoever did it committed a serious breach of national security. If they lied to the American public about it, they have proven they are unworthy to hold their positions of trust and power.

Personally, I believe the whole lying crew, all the way up to Bushwhacko, himself, were in on the plot to try to discredit Wilson by outing his wife, but that's just my opinion. It wouldn't suprise me. Anyone who can start a war based on lies that kills and injures tens of thousands of Americans isn't above a little more treason. It's just part of the game of politics, right? :|
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Damn I'm really pissed now I don't even care.

Do you ever shutup you annoying twat?
Awww. One of the pontificators of freedom of speech, expression, opposing viewpoints, and dissidence speaks up yet again.

You're such a damn liar. At least admit you're a Republican. Instead you pull this WHINEY ANNOYING OH-I'M-A-CONVERTED-LIBERAL SH!T. Thats just what it is dude. SH!T. The amount of bile you spread against the left is a clear reminder that you are just as right wing as any of the other extremist Talibanis here.
Can't stand have one of your own - and one who you can't slime as some right-wing religious nutjob and take your collective hatchets to, like you successfully did against Riprorin and various other right-wingers whose opinions you just can't tolerate in this forum - demonstrate the lunacy of the looper left, eh?

Well thanks for your complete and utter demonstration of peace, love, and understanding, dude. It's what the left is all about, ain't it? It was really sweet of you. :lips:
Oh please. Give me a break. I never attacked Riprorin, CAD or Crimson. In fact I supported their reinstatement.

All I'm telling you is be a man. Be real. Stop lying.

You don't even know who you are.
So what would qualify me as a Republican?

Would it be the fact that I'm pro-Choice? Or maybe it would be my support for gay marriage? Or possibly my agnostic religious beliefs? Could it be my pro-legalization of pot stance?

I know exactly who I am. You don't.
You're a neo-con which is a Republican in my book. You're supporting Rove when hes obviously done something very suspicious. Just be glad the Supreme Court nomination and the violence that is playing out across the world has taken the focus off of your buddy.
I'm a liberal hawk, not a neocon. But if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to call me a neocon, whatever.

LMAO. Con.

And I really couldn't give two flips and a golf clap about Rove. The Republicans have a mountain of guys that are just as bad, or worse, than Rove. Go ahead and railroad him on out. His replacement could be even more insidious.

So be careful what you wish for.

Really? I'm sure you've crapped out at least 7 craps over Rove in this thread. And then you attacked me for not attacking Wilson?

Yet more righteousness from the King.

Rove deserves every bit of what he is getting. It's not about who will replace him, it's about what he did wrong with Cooper.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
I'm betting that Karl is hoping that the investigation is over really soon. That way, he can be convicted while W. is still Pres, get pardoned and start his life as a Fox News correspondant like other right wing criminals Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy.
 

shurato

Platinum Member
Sep 24, 2000
2,398
0
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Damn I'm really pissed now I don't even care.

Do you ever shutup you annoying twat?
Awww. One of the pontificators of freedom of speech, expression, opposing viewpoints, and dissidence speaks up yet again.

You're such a damn liar. At least admit you're a Republican. Instead you pull this WHINEY ANNOYING OH-I'M-A-CONVERTED-LIBERAL SH!T. Thats just what it is dude. SH!T. The amount of bile you spread against the left is a clear reminder that you are just as right wing as any of the other extremist Talibanis here.
Can't stand have one of your own - and one who you can't slime as some right-wing religious nutjob and take your collective hatchets to, like you successfully did against Riprorin and various other right-wingers whose opinions you just can't tolerate in this forum - demonstrate the lunacy of the looper left, eh?

Well thanks for your complete and utter demonstration of peace, love, and understanding, dude. It's what the left is all about, ain't it? It was really sweet of you. :lips:
Oh please. Give me a break. I never attacked Riprorin, CAD or Crimson. In fact I supported their reinstatement.

All I'm telling you is be a man. Be real. Stop lying.

You don't even know who you are.
So what would qualify me as a Republican?

Would it be the fact that I'm pro-Choice? Or maybe it would be my support for gay marriage? Or possibly my agnostic religious beliefs? Could it be my pro-legalization of pot stance?

I know exactly who I am. You don't.
You're a neo-con which is a Republican in my book. You're supporting Rove when hes obviously done something very suspicious. Just be glad the Supreme Court nomination and the violence that is playing out across the world has taken the focus off of your buddy.
I'm a liberal hawk, not a neocon. But if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to call me a neocon, whatever.

And I really couldn't give two flips and a golf clap about Rove. The Republicans have a mountain of guys that are just as bad, or worse, than Rove. Go ahead and railroad him on out. His replacement could be even more insidious.

So be careful what you wish for.

You sure seem to come to the defense of Rove and this administration at every waking breath now don't you. Yet now you say you don't give two flips? DUDE...seriously... do yourself a favor and stop trying to pretend to be something your not. We can only go by our message postings to form an opinion on someone... people will label me a Bush hater by my posts... well sh!t, they're right... people label you as a right wing Bush apologist... go figure...

if it walks like a duck....

 
Feb 16, 2005
14,035
5,338
136
Why is this story fading? It's much more important than monica-gate, and if everythign pans out, it will surpass watergate. Yet, CNN's webpage headlines are completely void of any word of it. Nice. Maybe MSN...nope, but we can find out about the 10 hippest hotels. How about faux news... HOLY CRAPOLA! It's actually a headline there:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163638,00.html
kudos to faux news.
I really hope this story becomes the front page story it needs to be and the reporters that grilled McClellan (sp?) keep the cajones they finally grew back.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Didn't Poppy do something similar during the Iran/Contra mess? Why, yes. I do believe he did.

And Clinton pardon'd the McDougals. You know key witness's who decided to be in contempt of court and head to jail instead of testify and put Clinton behind bars.

Presidential pardons == abuse of power, there is no way around it.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
Didn't Poppy do something similar during the Iran/Contra mess? Why, yes. I do believe he did.
And Clinton pardon'd the McDougals. You know key witness's who decided to be in contempt of court and head to jail instead of testify and put Clinton behind bars.

Presidential pardons == abuse of power, there is no way around it.
He also pardoned Marc Rich (but I digress even further)

The topic being tossed about of late is a possible pardon *before* conviction. Is that even possible? If it is and the Propagandist does that, he can kiss the '06 elections goodbye.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Looks like one of the right-wing blogs has has performed something similar to Kos's "oppo" research on the signatories of the CIA letter complaining about the outing of Plame. Turns out that many were already voracious critics of the Bush admin to begin with:

http://redstate.org/story/2005/7/23/131127/416

No surprise there.

The I in CIA must really stand for intelligence, huh!!
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Looks like one of the right-wing blogs has has performed something similar to Kos's "oppo" research on the signatories of the CIA letter complaining about the outing of Plame. Turns out that many were already voracious critics of the Bush admin to begin with:

http://redstate.org/story/2005/7/23/131127/416

No surprise there.
Right. Sounds about right. Remember, many in the CIA were highly ticked off at the firing of Tenet, the blaming of the CIA on the WMD fiasco, and the hiring of Porter Goss.
 

jimkyser

Senior member
Nov 13, 2004
547
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
Didn't Poppy do something similar during the Iran/Contra mess? Why, yes. I do believe he did.
And Clinton pardon'd the McDougals. You know key witness's who decided to be in contempt of court and head to jail instead of testify and put Clinton behind bars.

Presidential pardons == abuse of power, there is no way around it.
He also pardoned Marc Rich (but I digress even further)

The topic being tossed about of late is a possible pardon *before* conviction. Is that even possible? If it is and the Propagandist does that, he can kiss the '06 elections goodbye.

Sure, Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for any involvement in Watergate before he was even charged, much less indicted or convicted.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
To me, it's a little different to pardon an elected official for attempting to cover up a burglery then pardoning an appointed official for releasing classified information.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Looks like one of the right-wing blogs has has performed something similar to Kos's "oppo" research on the signatories of the CIA letter complaining about the outing of Plame. Turns out that many were already voracious critics of the Bush admin to begin with:

http://redstate.org/story/2005/7/23/131127/416

No surprise there.

No surprise at all. Half of all Americans are Bush critics.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |