Karl Rove possibly tried for perjury?

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The 'Frogwalk Rove!' crew wants to ignore Wilson's lying in his NY Times op-ed. They seemingly don't want to recognize that his statements were the motivation that kicked this all off in the very first place. Wilson decided he wanted to his mission in a partisan manner and play dirty politics. But when the dirty politics rebound right back at him they hoot, holler, and cry foul.

Wilson got the ball rolling on this. He has nobody to plame (heh) but himself.

Right! :roll: Of course, outing Valerie Plame, lying about doing so the lying about yet one more reason to start a war that has killed thousands of American troops, squandering the resources necessary to find Bin Laden and finish off the Taliban in Afghanistan, and stretching our military to the point where we are powerless to handle any new threat aren't any cause for concern by ordinary Americans. :|

That's the entire point. The purpose was not to out Wilson's wife. The purpose was to demonstrate the partisan motivation of Wilson's op-ed in the NY Times and the partisan participation of Wilson's wife in arranging the trip. I don't think Rove or Novak had any concern about Plame being outed when it supposedly wasn't any big secret anyway. Her outing was seemingly not even an issue as far as they were concerned.

No, that's NOT the entire point. Rove's motives may determine what, if any, actual laws may have been broken, but in no way does it excuse such actions for political purposes. :|

Keith Olbermann's statement on MSNBC says it as well as anyone:

July 11, 2005 | 11:39 a.m. ET

Karl Rove: Soft on terror (Keith Olbermann)

SECURED UNDISCLOSED LOCATION -- Karl Rove is a liability in the war on terror.

Rove -- Newsweek?s new article quotes the very emails -- told a Time reporter that Ambassador Joe Wilson?s trip to investigate of the Niger uranium claim was at the behest of Wilson?s CIA wife.

To paraphrase Mr. Rove, liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers; conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared to ruin the career of one of the country?s spies tracking terrorist efforts to gain weapons of mass destruction -- for political gain.

Politics first, counter-terrorism second -- it?s as simple as that.

In his ?story guidance? to Matthew Cooper of Time, Rove did more damage to your safety than the most thumb-sucking liberal or guard at Abu Ghraib. He destroyed an intelligence asset like Valerie Plame merely to deflect criticism of a politician. We have all the damned politicians, of every stripe, that we need. The best of them isn?t worth half a Valerie Plame. And if the particular politician for whom Rove was deflecting, President Bush, is more than just all hat and no cattle on terrorism, he needs to banish Rove -- and loudly.

If you want to find only one point, it's that the entire Whitehouse, from McClellan, through Rove, all the way to the President, live in an ethical cesspool of lies and deception. Nothing they say can be trusted, and the motives for everything they do is suspect.

One real tragedy arising from this is, in a real time of crisis, the nation will have no effective leadership because we have every reason to doubt the truth about, and the motives for anything these so-called leaders say about anything.

 

[arsbanned]

Looks like Bush is "withholding judgement" on Rove. That pretty much spells doom for the traitor. What are the laws regarding treasonous acts during time of war? Ooooh, that would be delicious. The "architect" better start designing his retirement home.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wonkette had a great take on the Rove-Plame thing today

Memo to Dems: Turnabout Is Fair Plame

Okay, we admit it, we were overthinking the whole Rove-Plame thing. In speculating that this wouldn't destroy him or the White House, we had been hung up on how he didn't break the law. What we realize now is that liberals finally have an issue where the headline hurts Republicans more than it hurts them: "White House Aide Identified Undercover CIA Agent." Now, shut up. Shhh. Zip it. ZZZip. No, really, quiet. Repress natural urge to pedantry. For once, allow Americans' short attention span work for you. And whatever happens, do not let Michael Moore make a movie about it. Let the Republicans shoulder the responsibility of having to explain how Karl didn't do anything illegal, or how when he identified the agent it was in a context that wasn't so bad, or that it's Matt Cooper's fault, or why this is all just a massive smear campaign. Soon, they'll be debating the definition of "is" and you can start rumors about Laura being a lesbian. Fun!

So even Wonkete admits that the liberal lions are toothless on this issue?

LOL

 

[Darkhawk28]

I think what's getting lost in all this is that the judges decision to force Miller/Cooper to divulge their sources based on the evidence that he has seen. He was quoted as saying that the gravity of the crimes committed warranted the contempt charges against the journalists. Now, it's just a waiting game as to what those crimes were.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Looks like Bush is "withholding judgement" on Rove. That pretty much spells doom for the traitor. What are the laws regarding treasonous acts during time of war? Ooooh, that would be delicious. The "architect" better start designing his retirement home.

lol...did you even read the thread?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wonkette had a great take on the Rove-Plame thing today

Memo to Dems: Turnabout Is Fair Plame

Okay, we admit it, we were overthinking the whole Rove-Plame thing. In speculating that this wouldn't destroy him or the White House, we had been hung up on how he didn't break the law. What we realize now is that liberals finally have an issue where the headline hurts Republicans more than it hurts them: "White House Aide Identified Undercover CIA Agent." Now, shut up. Shhh. Zip it. ZZZip. No, really, quiet. Repress natural urge to pedantry. For once, allow Americans' short attention span work for you. And whatever happens, do not let Michael Moore make a movie about it. Let the Republicans shoulder the responsibility of having to explain how Karl didn't do anything illegal, or how when he identified the agent it was in a context that wasn't so bad, or that it's Matt Cooper's fault, or why this is all just a massive smear campaign. Soon, they'll be debating the definition of "is" and you can start rumors about Laura being a lesbian. Fun!

While it's true the GOP has shot itself in the foot so many times they're running out of flesh to shoot, the Democrats cannot sit by on the sidelines. It's time now for them to push hard on legislation that affects most Americans. Kerry has offered up an amendment for beefing up security in our ports (as he promised would be part of his homeland security plan during the election.)

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So even Wonkete admits that the liberal lions are toothless on this issue?

LOL

Yet another great authoritative source from TLC. :roll:

Google describes Wonkette:

Wonkette
A blend of gossip and satire and things the author makes up.
www.wonkette.com/ - 41k - Jul 11, 2005

Who is Wonkette?

I Am Wonkette, Hear Me Roar

Cast aside partisanship and pretension; Ana Marie Cox is a political blogger who just wants to make you laugh.

by Melissa Davison | 04.02.2004
.
.
.
Enter Ana Marie Cox. She?s sassy, she?s witty, and she is shoveling the dirt in D.C. like nobody else. Cox is the editor of the weblog Wonkette, a satirical round-up of the latest gossip on political campaigns, White House happenings, and the occasional Wacko Jacko exclusive posted from her home office in the Capitol.
.
.
The 31-year-old journalist describes Wonkette, the fictitious editorial persona on her site, as a ?drunk communist with a sense of humor. Wait: make that a socialist, still drunk, still with a sense of humor.?

I'm not putting her down. Just don't take what she says seriously without a little side fill on the facts.

Of course, it goes without saying that you can't take anything TLC says seriously so I won't say it... Oops. To late! :laugh:

 

[irwincur]

I just wonder who the NYT is hiding here. It is not Rove, and as we all now know, Rove never outed her by name.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: irwincur
I just wonder who the NYT is hiding here. It is not Rove, and as we all now know, Rove never outed her by name.

Yes, by relationship, SSN, height, weight, hair color, place of residence, employeer, OLN, and blood type, but never by name. He's innocent, folks!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So even Wonkete admits that the liberal lions are toothless on this issue?

LOL

Yet another great authoritative source from TLC. :roll:

Psssst. Harvey. You may want to look who initially posted the Wonkette blurb.

Google describes Wonkette:

Wonkette
A blend of gossip and satire and things the author makes up.
www.wonkette.com/ - 41k - Jul 11, 2005

Who is Wonkette?

I Am Wonkette, Hear Me Roar

Cast aside partisanship and pretension; Ana Marie Cox is a political blogger who just wants to make you laugh.

by Melissa Davison | 04.02.2004
.
.
.
Enter Ana Marie Cox. She?s sassy, she?s witty, and she is shoveling the dirt in D.C. like nobody else. Cox is the editor of the weblog Wonkette, a satirical round-up of the latest gossip on political campaigns, White House happenings, and the occasional Wacko Jacko exclusive posted from her home office in the Capitol.
.
.
The 31-year-old journalist describes Wonkette, the fictitious editorial persona on her site, as a ?drunk communist with a sense of humor. Wait: make that a socialist, still drunk, still with a sense of humor.?

I'm not putting her down. Just don't take what she says seriously without a little side fill on the facts.

Of course, it goes without saying that you can't take anything TLC says seriously so I won't say it... Oops. To late! :laugh:

Well considering you can't even follow who's posting what in this thread, and considering I've been reading Wonkette for well over a year and know exactly who she is, we'll all just have to take your opinion with a grain of salt, won't we.

But keep up your transparent attempts at crafting grvdge posts, Harvey. It's delightful to watch you constantly go down in flames.

:laugh:

Edit: A legitimate word like "grvdge" (It won't even allow me to spell it properly) is banned here at AT? WTkerFuffle?

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: irwincur
I just wonder who the NYT is hiding here. It is not Rove, and as we all now know, Rove never outed her by name.

Yes, by relationship, SSN, height, weight, hair color, place of residence, employeer, OLN, and blood type, but never by name. He's innocent, folks!

Finally, some funny on the thread o' despair.

 

[DealMonkey]

I think perhaps people are missing Wonkette's point. Which is for the Dems to let the administration/GOP flail around on this issue and let the headlines speak for themselves. I thought it was funny, but also probably a reasonable suggestion strategy-wise.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I think perhaps people are missing Wonkette's point. Which is for the Dems to let the administration/GOP flail around on this issue and let the headlines speak for themselves. I thought it was funny, but also probably a reasonable suggestion strategy-wise.

Strategy-wise it's a great suggestion. However, it requires that the Dems be reasonable which is something that hasn't been a part of their vocabulary for some time now.

 

[arsbanned]

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday that he will reserve judgment on Karl Rove?s possible involvement in the leaking of a CIA agent's identity until the special prosecutor?s criminal investigation into the matter is complete.

"This is a serious investigation," Bush said at the end of a meeting with his Cabinet, with Rove, his deputy chief of staff, sitting just behind him. "I will be more than happy to comment on this matter once this investigation is completed,? Bush said.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8562589/

 

[jahawkin]

Once again its comical how on the day after the release of the GOP talking points we have a flood of republican apologists parroting what they've been told. They had nothing to say for months, but now all of a sudden they're questioning some of the most basic elements of the story which have been resolved for quite some time.

As I posted in another thread, here's Bob Novak a week after his column was published.

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

Remember that Novak sourced his claim to two senior admin. officials (a small group of people). This sure doesn't make sense with the GOP talking points which claim that Rove mentioned Plame to Cooper offhand after talking about welfare reform. Unless you're going to claim that it was other senior admin. officials that talked to Novak. Either way it is a coordinated effort.
And enough of the "she wasn't covert" talk. Why would the CIA refer this case to the DOJ if they didn't think some assets weren't comprimised??
As stated in this article (link removed because it was too long - knight ridder oct. 1 2003.

The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence.

So, do the Republican talking points know more about Plame's status than the CIA??

 

[tommywishbone]

Much ado about nothing. Bush, Rove, whoever. They can do anything they want and there is nothing you or me or anyone can do to stop them. The lunatics are running the asylum.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Once again its comical how on the day after the release of the GOP talking points we have a flood of republican apologists parroting what they've been told. They had nothing to say for months, but now all of a sudden they're questioning some of the most basic elements of the story which have been resolved for quite some time.

As I posted in another thread, here's Bob Novak a week after his column was published.

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

Remember that Novak sourced his claim to two senior admin. officials (a small group of people). This sure doesn't make sense with the GOP talking points which claim that Rove mentioned Plame to Cooper offhand after talking about welfare reform. Unless you're going to claim that it was other senior admin. officials that talked to Novak. Either way it is a coordinated effort.
And enough of the "she wasn't covert" talk. Why would the CIA refer this case to the DOJ if they didn't think some assets weren't comprimised??
As stated in this article (link removed because it was too long - knight ridder oct. 1 2003.

The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence.

So, do the Republican talking points know more about Plame's status than the CIA??

I agree, the talking points are hilarious.

They attack Wilson, when the whole issue is Karl Rove. Wilson doesn't matter and is completely irrelevent.

Rove should not be talking about the status of a CIA agent, whatever the reason is.

Most peculiar is the fact that his lawyer refused to answer whether Rove knew of her secret status before talking to Cooper. Karl Rove is some "hero"!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Well considering you can't even follow who's posting what in this thread, and considering I've been reading Wonkette for well over a year and know exactly who she is, we'll all just have to take your opinion with a grain of salt, won't we.

Ooh! Got me! But I'll be glad to step up and admit I blew the link.

But keep up your transparent attempts at crafting grvdge posts, Harvey. It's delightful to watch you constantly go down in flames.

:laugh:

Pointing out your fallacies, fanatasies, distractions and diversions hardly makes them "grudge posts." The good news is, I'm not the only one who sees what a bullsh8er you are. If you think that means I'm "going down in flames, you're even more deluded than I thought. :laugh:

 

[BBond]

Whether you believe Rove committed a crime or not, his behavior is deplorable for an advisor to the president, and the president promised to fire anyone who leaked the information on Plame's identity.

Rove must go, and if there is any justice in the world, Rove must go to prison.

 

[BBond]

Bush says won't prejudge CIA case, Rove's role

Too bad the jerk off didn't take the same approach with Iraq.

Report: 128,000 Iraqis Have Died Since U.S. Invasion

But human life doesn't matter to Bush as long as he gets his way.

 

[Gaard]

Basic math.

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.
Only the biggest fanboy of the fanboys would defend Rove. TLC is the biggest Rove defender here. Therefore, TLC is a mighty big fanboy.

Basic math.

 

[BBond]

If Bush can't find the balls to do what he promised to do and fire Rove, at the very least he MUST revoke Rove's security clearance until the grand jury completes their investigation. How can Bush trust Rove with national security data until then?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Basic math.

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.
Only the biggest fanboy of the fanboys would defend Rove. TLC is the biggest Rove defender here. Therefore, TLC is a mighty big fanboy.

Basic math.

Wow, another math genius in here. :roll:

Seems some people can't differentiate between adhering to the actual facts behind this case and diving headlong into the hysterical BS of the left.

Understand this, since your ilk loves the old 'correlation does not imply causation' line. Citing facts that demonstrate Rove may not have broken any law is not the same as defending him. I'm deflecting the BS of the lefty fruit loopers. That's my primary and only purpose. If you want to believe that's identical to defending Rove then dive right in because that pov is another vivid demonstration of how fvcked up and skewed the loopers are today.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
Basic math.

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.
Only the biggest fanboy of the fanboys would defend Rove. TLC is the biggest Rove defender here. Therefore, TLC is a mighty big fanboy.

Basic math.

Wow, another math genius in here. :roll:

Seems some people can't differentiate between adhering to the actual facts behind this case and diving headlong into the hysterical BS of the left.

Understand this, since your ilk loves the old 'correlation does not imply causation' line. Citing facts that demonstrate Rove may not have broken any law is not the same as defending him. I'm deflecting the BS of the lefty fruit loopers. That's my primary and only purpose. If you want to believe that's identical to defending Rove then dive right in because that pov is another vivid demonstration of how fvcked up and skewed the loopers are today.

well said

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
Basic math.

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.
Only the biggest fanboy of the fanboys would defend Rove. TLC is the biggest Rove defender here. Therefore, TLC is a mighty big fanboy.

Basic math.

Wow, another math genius in here. :roll:

Seems some people can't differentiate between adhering to the actual facts behind this case and diving headlong into the hysterical BS of the left.

Understand this, since your ilk loves the old 'correlation does not imply causation' line. Citing facts that demonstrate Rove may not have broken any law is not the same as defending him. I'm deflecting the BS of the lefty fruit loopers. That's my primary and only purpose. If you want to believe that's identical to defending Rove then dive right in because that pov is another vivid demonstration of how fvcked up and skewed the loopers are today.

That's bullsh!t TLC and you can deny it all you want. Me, and my 'ilk', know it to be true. You're defending Rove here. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

You know what's funny. You sit here stating that your primary goal is to deflect the BS of the lefty loopers, when you should've just stopped at the word 'deflect'. It would've been more correct. In fact, it would've been spot-on. I'm pretty sure the joy of seeing the Rove accusers wrong is your 'primary and only purpose here'.


Hey Davey. Relax kid, it was just a typo.


de·fend ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-fnd)
v. de·fend·ed, de·fend·ing, de·fends
v. tr.
To make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm.
Sports.
To attempt to prevent the opposition from scoring while playing in or near (a goal or area of a field, for example).
To be responsible for guarding (an opposing player).
To compete against a challenger in an attempt to retain (a championship).
To support or maintain, as by argument or action; justify.
Law.
To represent (a defendant) in a civil or criminal action.
To attempt to disprove or invalidate (an action or claim).