Why can't every Congressman be as vigilant as Conyers?
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democrati...t_explain_role_in_CIA_outing_0705.html
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democrati...t_explain_role_in_CIA_outing_0705.html
Prosecutor Demands Time Reporter TestimonyIn confirming the conversation between Rove and Cooper, Rove attorney Robert Luskin stressed this weekend that the presidential adviser did not reveal any secrets. Still, the disclosure raised new questions about Rove and the precise role of the White House as Cooper and another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, faced imminent jail terms.
Miller and Cooper could be ordered to jail as early as Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan will hear arguments from Fitzgerald and lawyers for the reporters about whether they should testify.
Hogan has found the reporters in contempt of court for refusing to divulge their sources and he indicated last week that he is prepared to send them to jail if they do not cooperate.
Maybe not every Congressman is as stupid as Conyers?Originally posted by: conjur
Why can't every Congressman be as vigilant as Conyers?
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democrati...t_explain_role_in_CIA_outing_0705.html
Here's another foot for your mouth:Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If the swifties are such liars, then why hasn't Kerry still released his military record to the public? He supposedly signed the Form 180, but restricted access to all but a couple of newspapers and they won't make the record public. What's JK got to hide?
Do you really find shoe leather that tasty?Kerry allows Navy release of military, medical records
Show numerous commendations
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | June 7, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Senator John F. Kerry, ending at least two years of refusal, has waived privacy restrictions and authorized the release of his full military and medical records.
The records, which the Navy Personnel Command provided to the Globe, are mostly a duplication of what Kerry released during his 2004 campaign for president, including numerous commendations from commanding officers who later criticized Kerry's Vietnam service.
The lack of any substantive new material about Kerry's military career in the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive privacy restrictions. An earlier release of the full record might have helped his campaign because it contains a number of reports lauding his service. Indeed, one of the first actions of the group that came to be known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was to call on Kerry to sign a privacy waiver and release all of his military and medical records.
But Kerry refused, even though it turned out that the records included commendations from some of the same veterans who were criticizing him.
On May 20, Kerry signed a document called Standard Form 180, authorizing the Navy to send an ''undeleted" copy of his ''complete military service record and medical record" to the Globe. Asked why he delayed signing the form for so long, Kerry said in a written response: ''The call for me to sign a 180 form came from the same partisan operatives who were lying about my record on a daily basis on the Web and in the right-wing media. Even though the media was discrediting them, they continued to lie. I felt strongly that we shouldn't kowtow to them and their attempts to drag their lies out."
Many of the records contain praise for Kerry's service. For example, the documents quote Kerry's former commanding officers as saying he is ''one of the finest young officers with whom I have served;" is ''the acknowledged leader of his peer group;" and is ''highly recommended for promotion."
Kerry's refusal to waive privacy restrictions dates back to at least May 2003, when the Globe asked in writing for Kerry to sign the Form 180. As questions were raised about various actions in Vietnam, the Kerry campaign gradually released documents last year, but had not authorized the release of the entire file until now.
In April 2004, Kerry said he had already released his military records. ''I've shown them, they're available for you to come and look at," Kerry said in a television interview. But when a reporter showed up at campaign headquarters, he was told that no new records would be released. That prompted a flood of Republican criticism, and the campaign responded by gradually releasing more military records on its website. Kerry then released his ''fitness reports" -- evaluations by commanding officers -- on April 21, 2004.
Two days later, the campaign allowed some reporters to view Kerry's medical record but did not allow copies to be made and did not post that information online.
By signing Form 180 now, Kerry may hope to achieve several goals: settle the question of whether there is an explosive document in the file; put pressure on critics to release their military records; and try to put to rest an issue that dogged his 2004 campaign and would probably come up again if he seeks the presidency in 2008.
The file does not provide new documents about various combat actions. It contains mostly a repetition of Kerry's citations for the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. For example, it does not include the combat ''after action reports" that detail what happened in some of the firefights in which Kerry participated. Those reports are available for public inspection at the Navy historical center in Washington and have already been widely disseminated.
John O'Neill, the leader of the Swift Boat veterans group and coauthor of the book ''Unfit for Command," said yesterday that he would be disappointed if Kerry's files do not contain new information. ''I would still have the same beliefs expressed in my book," he said.
O'Neill, who said he has already authorized the release of his records, has questioned a number of Kerry's combat actions involving the first Purple Heart, the Silver Star, and the Bronze Star.
For example, Kerry received his first Purple Heart for action on Dec. 2, 1968. Kerry told historian Douglas Brinkley that ''I never saw where the piece of shrapnel had come from." Kerry's critics have questioned whether the wound came from enemy fire, and his former commanding officer said the wound resembled a ''scratch." The file includes a previously reported reference to Kerry being treated for the wound and that he was awarded the Purple Heart, but it does not address the details of the combat that night. No after-action report for the incident has been found.
Open wide. Here comes yet another foot:As far as Cleland, who in politics called him a traitor? That's yet another invention of the left. Just because he's a triple amputee it does that mean he's somehow immune from having his voting record questioned. Questioning his voting record is not the same thing as calling him a traitor.
Are we having fun yet?Cleland, 60, is still livid over a now-infamous TV commercial that Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss ran against him. It opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, then attacked Cleland for voting against President Bush's Homeland Security bill. It didn't mention that Cleland supported a Democratic bill that wasn't radically different.
Do we have to assume you suffer ADD, or didn't bother to check all the previous links in this thread naming Rove? :shocked: I'm not saying all the evidence is in, but Rove has been named as the source of the leak.Novak cited 2 senior Bush administration officials. We don't know that they were Whitehouse staff. At this point all we really know is what Novak claimed, nothing more. Don't the lefties love to proclaim "Innocent until proven guilty?" If so, it seems mighty hypocritical to be slamming the gavel down this early, and long before any actual facts have been presented.
You still haven't shown the balls, let alone the ability, to refute the charges or provide any links that would disprove them. I can only conlude that you can't because there are no links you can cite. All you can do is call everyone "leftie," and think that's enough to change reality.I don't have the balls?You still haven't posted anything to refute the evidence linking the leak directly to the Whitehouse, and you still haven't had the balls, let alone the ethics, to condemn the act of leaking the identity of a CIA covert agent, itself, regardless of who the source is.
LOL. Do you really feel it necessary to jump on your high horse and cajole someone, using such banal accusations, to state the obvious? How ridiculous.
I won't be disappointed about what the charge is against the leaker, as long as they throw away the key when he/she/they are convicted. :|Actually, it's not treason, but keep telling yourself it is so you can be set up for disappointment when the charge isn't levied.
To quote a famous Republican, "There you go again." The facts in Sandy Berger's case are a matter of public record so I don't have to repost the details, here. Do you really think there is any equivalency between what he did and disclosing major worldwide intelligence networks?And since you seem so concerned about breeches of national security, where were you when Sandy "the sock burglar" Burger was stuffing secret documents down his 'breeches?' Are you going to call for his trial for treason next? I'm sure you don't want to appear hypocritical, right?
A little short on reading comprehension, Harvey?Originally posted by: Harvey
Here's another foot for your mouth:Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If the swifties are such liars, then why hasn't Kerry still released his military record to the public? He supposedly signed the Form 180, but restricted access to all but a couple of newspapers and they won't make the record public. What's JK got to hide?Do you really find shoe leather that tasty?Kerry allows Navy release of military, medical records
Show numerous commendations
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | June 7, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Senator John F. Kerry, ending at least two years of refusal, has waived privacy restrictions and authorized the release of his full military and medical records.
The records, which the Navy Personnel Command provided to the Globe, are mostly a duplication of what Kerry released during his 2004 campaign for president, including numerous commendations from commanding officers who later criticized Kerry's Vietnam service.
The lack of any substantive new material about Kerry's military career in the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive privacy restrictions. An earlier release of the full record might have helped his campaign because it contains a number of reports lauding his service. Indeed, one of the first actions of the group that came to be known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was to call on Kerry to sign a privacy waiver and release all of his military and medical records.
But Kerry refused, even though it turned out that the records included commendations from some of the same veterans who were criticizing him.
On May 20, Kerry signed a document called Standard Form 180, authorizing the Navy to send an ''undeleted" copy of his ''complete military service record and medical record" to the Globe. Asked why he delayed signing the form for so long, Kerry said in a written response: ''The call for me to sign a 180 form came from the same partisan operatives who were lying about my record on a daily basis on the Web and in the right-wing media. Even though the media was discrediting them, they continued to lie. I felt strongly that we shouldn't kowtow to them and their attempts to drag their lies out."
Many of the records contain praise for Kerry's service. For example, the documents quote Kerry's former commanding officers as saying he is ''one of the finest young officers with whom I have served;" is ''the acknowledged leader of his peer group;" and is ''highly recommended for promotion."
Kerry's refusal to waive privacy restrictions dates back to at least May 2003, when the Globe asked in writing for Kerry to sign the Form 180. As questions were raised about various actions in Vietnam, the Kerry campaign gradually released documents last year, but had not authorized the release of the entire file until now.
In April 2004, Kerry said he had already released his military records. ''I've shown them, they're available for you to come and look at," Kerry said in a television interview. But when a reporter showed up at campaign headquarters, he was told that no new records would be released. That prompted a flood of Republican criticism, and the campaign responded by gradually releasing more military records on its website. Kerry then released his ''fitness reports" -- evaluations by commanding officers -- on April 21, 2004.
Two days later, the campaign allowed some reporters to view Kerry's medical record but did not allow copies to be made and did not post that information online.
By signing Form 180 now, Kerry may hope to achieve several goals: settle the question of whether there is an explosive document in the file; put pressure on critics to release their military records; and try to put to rest an issue that dogged his 2004 campaign and would probably come up again if he seeks the presidency in 2008.
The file does not provide new documents about various combat actions. It contains mostly a repetition of Kerry's citations for the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. For example, it does not include the combat ''after action reports" that detail what happened in some of the firefights in which Kerry participated. Those reports are available for public inspection at the Navy historical center in Washington and have already been widely disseminated.
John O'Neill, the leader of the Swift Boat veterans group and coauthor of the book ''Unfit for Command," said yesterday that he would be disappointed if Kerry's files do not contain new information. ''I would still have the same beliefs expressed in my book," he said.
O'Neill, who said he has already authorized the release of his records, has questioned a number of Kerry's combat actions involving the first Purple Heart, the Silver Star, and the Bronze Star.
For example, Kerry received his first Purple Heart for action on Dec. 2, 1968. Kerry told historian Douglas Brinkley that ''I never saw where the piece of shrapnel had come from." Kerry's critics have questioned whether the wound came from enemy fire, and his former commanding officer said the wound resembled a ''scratch." The file includes a previously reported reference to Kerry being treated for the wound and that he was awarded the Purple Heart, but it does not address the details of the combat that night. No after-action report for the incident has been found.
Open wide. Here comes yet another foot:As far as Cleland, who in politics called him a traitor? That's yet another invention of the left. Just because he's a triple amputee it does that mean he's somehow immune from having his voting record questioned. Questioning his voting record is not the same thing as calling him a traitor.
Are we having fun yet? [/quote]Cleland, 60, is still livid over a now-infamous TV commercial that Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss ran against him. It opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, then attacked Cleland for voting against President Bush's Homeland Security bill. It didn't mention that Cleland supported a Democratic bill that wasn't radically different.
[/quote]Do we have to assume you suffer ADD, or didn't bother to check all the previous links in this thread naming Rove? :shocked: I'm not saying all the evidence is in, but Rove has been named as the source of the leak.Novak cited 2 senior Bush administration officials. We don't know that they were Whitehouse staff. At this point all we really know is what Novak claimed, nothing more. Don't the lefties love to proclaim "Innocent until proven guilty?" If so, it seems mighty hypocritical to be slamming the gavel down this early, and long before any actual facts have been presented.
And now you shift gears from 'admission' to 'refutation.' How typical of you, Harvey.You still haven't shown the balls, let alone the ability, to refute the charges or provide any links that would disprove them. I can only conlude that you can't because there are no links you can cite. All you can do is call everyone "leftie," and think that's enough to change reality.LOL. Do you really feel it necessary to jump on your high horse and cajole someone, using such banal accusations, to state the obvious? How ridiculous.
Try clicking your heels together three times and see if it gets you back to Kansas, Dorothy. :laugh:[
I won't be disappointed about what the charge is against the leaker, as long as they throw away the key when he/she/they are convicted. :|[/quote]Q]Actually, it's not treason, but keep telling yourself it is so you can be set up for disappointment when the charge isn't levied.
Do you want me to answer that particular question, or are you talking about Plame, who doesn't seem to fit the picture you're trying to paint above?Just for grins, what would you call the crime when someone intentionally discloses the name of an official high level U.S. covert intelligence operative and incidenally reveals and shattes intelligence networks that took years, if not decades, to build?
You didn't answer my question, Harvey.To quote a famous Republican, "There you go again." The facts in Sandy Berger's case are a matter of public record so I don't have to repost the details, here. Do you really think there is any equivalency between what he did and disclosing major worldwide intelligence networks?And since you seem so concerned about breeches of national security, where were you when Sandy "the sock burglar" Burger was stuffing secret documents down his 'breeches?' Are you going to call for his trial for treason next? I'm sure you don't want to appear hypocritical, right?
You seem very fixated on my balls. Seems rather creepy.You're welcome to post the links and details if you think you can make that case, but once again, I doubt you'll have the balls to do it. Of course, as usual, that will probably be because you can't. :roll:
It shouldn't be a problem. You haven't shown enough to post any real links or facts. I'll take it you don't have any links, facts or balls. Take that last one in the figurative sense of having no courage or personal integrity if you really don't understand the implication.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You seem very fixated on my balls. Seems rather creepy.
Originally posted by: conjur
There's nothing in that letter from Rep. Conyers that even remotely resembles libel. Being the liberal you say you are, I'm surprised at your apologist stance against someone who makes Ralph Reed look like a schoolboy.
Notwithstanding whether Mr. Rove intentionally violated the law in leaking information concerning former CIA operative Valerie Plame, we believe it is not tenable to maintain Mr. Rove as one of your most important advisors unless he is willing to explain his central role in using the power and authority of your Administration to disseminate information regarding Ms. Plame and to undermine her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
If that's true then respond to my post in some sort of rational fashion and with actual facts that relate to what I said. I know being rational and comprehending what people actually say is out of character for you, but do try.Originally posted by: Harvey
It shouldn't be a problem. You haven't show you have any.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You seem very fixated on my balls. Seems rather creepy.
He's closer to the source than any of us so maybe you should start sending him all the same fine information you've given us trying to distract everyone from the truth.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Conyers is straight out accusing Rove of being the leaker. If it's untrue, it's libel, pure and simple. Conyers better hope he's right in his premature accusation and that Rove is indeed the leaker
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe not every Congressman is as stupid as Conyers?Originally posted by: conjur
Why can't every Congressman be as vigilant as Conyers?
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democrati...t_explain_role_in_CIA_outing_0705.html
His letter is accusatory and closely borders on libel, as it carries the implication that Rove is indeed guilty, as if Conyers has already made up his mind on the matter.
If it turns out Rove wasn't involved Conyers is going to have major egg on his face. Yet, some Democrats just can't seem to resist jumping the gun purely for a little political showboating and a photo op.
If they'd (the Democrats) clean their own house first and get of a good portion of the chaff in their ranks then people could possibly take them seriously. As it stands now, and has been for some time, they are mostly just a lot of noise and bluster that the mainstream blocks out.
Once again you use your lack of reading comprehension to smack yourself silly. Let's see what I wrote:Originally posted by: Harvey
He's closer to the source than any of us so maybe you should start sending him all the same fine information you've given us trying to distract everyone from the truth.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Conyers is straight out accusing Rove of being the leaker. If it's untrue, it's libel, pure and simple. Conyers better hope he's right in his premature accusation and that Rove is indeed the leaker
Go ahead. Show Conyers just how wrong he is. While you're at it, try showing us the same thing. Be sure to include all your relevant links and facts.
So far, you still haven't managed that, here. :roll:
Like Conyers, you seem to have already made up your mind that Rove is guilty.Originally posted by: jahawkin
So, in your view, some Democrats do things for "political showboating and a photo op." If only the Democratic party could get rid of these "chaff in thier ranks" they'd be much better off.
Funny you say this in a thread about Rove attacking someone explicitly for political purposes. Regardless of the outcome of the criminal probe, Rove himself has admitted that he talked to reportes about Plame (he claims it was after the Novak column ran - Cooper's notes say otherwise) in an effort to discredit Wilson. Rove called for a political character assassination because Wilson dared to call out Bush on his lies.
So are you going to call out the Republican party to get rid of such chaff?? I think what Rove did was a bit more serious and malicous than a photo op.
Or are you going to continue to defend Rove? Are you sitting back and smiliing right now with Rove because so smart and sneaky?
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Like Conyers, you seem to have already made up your mind that Rove is guilty.
IF Rove is at fault, then he gets whatever he gets. I could not care less about Rove. I am another liberal warning liberals not to jump off the deep end on this. Do they listen though? Hell no. They're so closed minded and seemingly neurotic about everything, they can't look past their own bi-ass to recognize that.
And the only thing I'm sitting back and smiling about right now is Harvey's continued ignorance and lack of reading comprehension.
Its irrelevant whether Rove was the leaker or not. Its a fact that Rove tried to smear Wilson after he spoke up. Rove admits this.Regardless of the outcome of the criminal probe, Rove himself has admitted that he talked to reportes about Plame (he claims it was after the Novak column ran - Cooper's notes say otherwise) in an effort to discredit Wilson.
LOL. Right.....Just another liberal armed with conservative talking points on every issue.I am another liberal
Originally posted by: totalcommand
I'd file this under "conspiracy theory" for now. Some analysts' speculations will not do it for me even if I really want this to be true. I'm gonna wait for the real thing.
I didn't miss your comment. I gave you a pass since it's actually in incorrect statement. According to Isikoff:Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Like Conyers, you seem to have already made up your mind that Rove is guilty.
IF Rove is at fault, then he gets whatever he gets. I could not care less about Rove. I am another liberal warning liberals not to jump off the deep end on this. Do they listen though? Hell no. They're so closed minded and seemingly neurotic about everything, they can't look past their own bi-ass to recognize that.
And the only thing I'm sitting back and smiling about right now is Harvey's continued ignorance and lack of reading comprehension.
What about your reading comprehension?? Did you not read or comprehend me when I said this:
Regardless of the outcome of the criminal probe, Rove himself has admitted that he talked to reportes about Plame (he claims it was after the Novak column ran - Cooper's notes say otherwise) in an effort to discredit Wilson.
Does he actually admit that?Its irrelevant whether Rove was the leaker or not. Its a fact that Rove tried to smear Wilson after he spoke up. Rove admits this.
I'm not making any judgement yet. As I keep repeating, none of the actual facts on the matter are in.So do you think its acceptable to go after someone's character and smear them because they tell the truth? Do you defend Rove for these actions??
I seem quite more liberal than those 'true' liberals in here who are more than eager to throw Rove to the lions before they know what the truth is.LOL. Right.....Just another liberal armed with conservative talking points on every issue.I am another liberal
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Like Conyers, you seem to have already made up your mind that Rove is guilty.
IF Rove is at fault, then he gets whatever he gets. I could not care less about Rove. I am another liberal warning liberals not to jump off the deep end on this. Do they listen though? Hell no. They're so closed minded and seemingly neurotic about everything, they can't look past their own bi-ass to recognize that.
And the only thing I'm sitting back and smiling about right now is Harvey's continued ignorance and lack of reading comprehension.
What about your reading comprehension?? Did you not read or comprehend me when I said this:
Its irrelevant whether Rove was the leaker or not. Its a fact that Rove tried to smear Wilson after he spoke up. Rove admits this.Regardless of the outcome of the criminal probe, Rove himself has admitted that he talked to reportes about Plame (he claims it was after the Novak column ran - Cooper's notes say otherwise) in an effort to discredit Wilson.
So do you think its acceptable to go after someone's character and smear them because they tell the truth? Do you defend Rove for these actions??
LOL. Right.....Just another liberal armed with conservative talking points on every issue.I am another liberal
Let's look at one particular part of Conyer's letter:
Notwithstanding whether Mr. Rove intentionally violated the law in leaking information concerning former CIA operative Valerie Plame, we believe it is not tenable to maintain Mr. Rove as one of your most important advisors unless he is willing to explain his central role in using the power and authority of your Administration to disseminate information regarding Ms. Plame and to undermine her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
Conyers is straight out accusing Rove of being the leaker. If it's untrue, it's libel, pure and simple. Conyers better hope he's right in his premature accusation and that Rove is indeed the leaker.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I didn't miss your comment. I gave you a pass since it's actually in incorrect statement. According to Isikoff:
"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.... "
We don't know yet what transpired between Cooper and Rove. So once again it's a bit premature to proclaim anything as fact. I also doubt you've read Copper's notes to know any of the facts behind the matter either.
Rove was talking to reporters after Novak's column ran. And I trust Matthews and newsweek alot more than vague pronuncements from McClellan. And one would think that since Cooper notes are of interest to the Fitzgerald, they have something to do with the case at hand.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 I bet you're going to question this report because its from the liberal American Prospect. But it sounds pretty consistent with what we know (plame is "fair game")President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, told the FBI in an interview last October that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists, according to a government official and an attorney familiar with the ongoing special counsel's investigation of the matter.
But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
Rove and other White House officials described to the FBI what sources characterized as an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife to the press, utilizing proxies such as conservative interest groups and the Republican National Committee to achieve those ends, and distributing talking points to allies of the administration on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Rove is said to have named at least six other administration officials who were involved in the effort to discredit Wilson.
If the Prospect article is true, if Chris Matthews is to be believed, yes.Does he actually admit that?
fixedOriginally posted by: Jadow
I just want to contribute nothing to this thread by saying: God, I'm a troll.
Originally posted by: Jadow
I just want to contribute to this thread by saying: God, I hate liberals.
fixed again.Originally posted by: Jadow
I just want to contribute nothing to this thread by saying: God, I wish I had something to say, but I don't so I won't.