kevinKovach wrote:
“And this brings up another conundrum. Wasn’t the Bush Administration supposed to bring morals and ethics back into politics?”
You are REACHING. Shall we have a quick comparison to your pals, the clintons?
No private scandals for W.
Pretty impressive in comparision.
JeffR
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And now we have a President who does not want to fire his top aid. A man who was most responsible for electing him twice to the Presidency unless there is proof (there is that pesky word again) that he actually did something significantly wrong.
I guess none of them are perfect…(I am hanging my head).
[/quote]
Just curious if in your mind that is the one and only questionable or negative issue to date with this administration?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Well, this is on topic, subtopic anyway, based on what I’ve been saying about people forming opinions about the Bush administration…
I guess it “proves” I knew what I was talking about with respect to perception, even if I don’t have the ability to forecast the end result of the investigation and the republicans appear to do.
Buck up Elk, half the NATION agrees with your assessment of Bush and his cronies, I wonder if they all have proof to present to the world for making that judgement call?
Rainjack, when others tone done, do you think you could follow suit, or are you a one trick anger pony? Ride cowboy ride! Rollin’ rollin’ rollin’, rawhide!
[/quote]
I only wish your sarcasm was as funny, and cutting as you fashion it to be in your head. If I personally offend anyone, or if I drag a thread totally off topic with emotional outbursts such as you and elk have had a habit of doing lately, I would think that I should be able to “tone done”.
As for sticking one’s finger in the air to determine once morality - this isn’t the Clinton Admin. Bush has proven time and again that he could give a shit about the polls.
And I fail to see what a popularity contest has to do with Rove’s guilt or innocence, or whether he actually did anything wrong.
Aw, relax Sasquatch. I was just poking some very mild good natured fun at you.
Rainjack,
If it isn’t clear to you, then let me explain.
When HALF THE NATION doesn’t trust the president, it means they don’t believe the explanations they are receiving about this issue.
When you believe the president, or officials in the adiministration, are lying to you about this issue, then its very possible indeed that there is something underneath this issue that hasn’t come out.
Of course the public doesn’t have proof. Since when did the public have proof?
So, perhaps we should point to Clinton now, as if that somehow has something to do with the facts of the issue with respect to Rove and the Bush administration?
Talk about deception and distraction. This is ENTIRELY on topic, the only problem is that you don’t like what you are hearing, so you look for ways to reject it.
Are there any other complicated political relationships that you might like to see elucidated?
Finally, whether or not you appreciate my humor, or sarcasm, or whatever it is you want to interpret my comments as today, is hardly the point, is it?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
kevinKovach wrote:
“And this brings up another conundrum. Wasn’t the Bush Administration supposed to bring morals and ethics back into politics?”
You are REACHING. Shall we have a quick comparison to your pals, the clintons?
No private scandals for W.
Pretty impressive in comparision.
JeffR
[/quote]
I’m not really a Clinton Fan. In fact I’m starting to consider myself more on the conservative side, but I call Bullshit when I see it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack,
If it isn’t clear to you, then let me explain.
When HALF THE NATION doesn’t trust the president, it means they don’t believe the explanations they are receiving about this issue.
When you believe the president, or officials in the adiministration, are lying to you about this issue, then its very possible indeed that there is something underneath this issue that hasn’t come out.
Of course the public doesn’t have proof. Since when did the public have proof?[/quote]
I understand what you are tryting to say. But - and now it’s your turn to try and pay attention - public opinion has no place in determining guilt or innocence. You can’t sentence someone to prison because half the country thinks there is more to it than what they are being spoonfed from the MSM.
I’ll repeat myself - it is not a popularity contest. If there is wrong doing that results in a trial - then half the country will feel justified. But not until then. And speculating on whether or not there is more to the case than what has been on display is just that - speculation. Therefore I reject your premise that if half the country thinks Bush is a criminal, then he must be one. That is just ignorant.
[quote]
So, perhaps we should point to Clinton now, as if that somehow has something to do with the facts of the issue with respect to Rove and the Bush administration?[/quote]
I used the Clinton admin ato contrast Bush’s leadershipo style against one who ran his entire Presidency by looking at the opinion polls, and ficus groups.
You brought up the assertion that if the opinion polls say that Bush/Rove is guilty - then they must be regardles of fact.
[quote]
Talk about deception and distraction. This is ENTIRELY on topic, the only problem is that you don’t like what you are hearing, so you look for ways to reject it.
Are there any other complicated political relationships that you might like to see elucidated?[/quote]
I happen to disagree with this being on topic. We are talking about an investigation, not a popularity contest. Honestly vroom - you are much brighter than this. At least that’s what 56% of the folks I polled said - so it must be true, right?
I’ll let you in on a little secret - the day I need help from you to understand “complicated political relationships” is the day I suck on the business end of my .12 guage.
[quote]
Finally, whether or not you appreciate my humor, or sarcasm, or whatever it is you want to interpret my comments as today, is hardly the point, is it? [/quote]
Hardly - but then why use it? Is it okay for you to run you mouth off, and have your attempts at sarcasm be free of comment? Sorry - but whatever you write is open season wrt comment/retorts.
Rainjack,
How can this thread, or any other political thread be anything but speculation.
We don’t have crystal balls. That’s most of what we do around here… is talk about things that are in the works before all the facts are in.
We point to items that have formed judgements on and use that to explain why we have the opinions we do.
Hell, if we had to wait until we knew whether or not there really was proof, we’d have to wait until the end of the investigation, and then hope everything was opened up for review and that it all smelled good.
So, I “tried to pay attention” and I got your point, we don’t know. At the same time, neither do you. So, arguing that nothing has happened is just as silly, and it is also based on nothing other than trust in the Bush administration to not be party to such wrongdoing.
Either that, or it isn’t trust, but an attempt to show support for your party whether or not they did it, as long as proof can’t be found.
Depending on who does the posting, in this parts, it can be hard to tell which motivation it is.
In any case, there is certainly a lot of deflection, distraction and discrediting going on…
Okay, so I lied.
[quote]
I’ll let you in on a little secret - the day I need help from you to understand “complicated political relationships” is the day I suck on the business end of my .12 guage. [/quote]
Most appealing thing you’ve written yet! Feel free to inquire about any advice regarding political relationships at anytime.
[quote]100meters wrote:
You said:
that had some designation that didn’t indicate info was government classified information.
They said: (From the WP today)
A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked “(S)” for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
Plame – who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo – is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.
The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the “secret” level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as “secret” the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.
Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame’s name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret
again…leaking classified info is bad. This was classified info. Rove DID confirm said info. Libby too. Perhaps others.
on a side note:
What’s also funny is the differences in state dept. and whitehouse “perceptions”…
“Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson’s wife.”
and
"It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson’s trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking “uranium from Niger.”
Wow. Slandering a guy for finding the same thing intel had already found. Nothing. But Bushies weren’t manipulating the intel right Ken Mehlman?[/quote]
Thank you for providing the link to the story 100meters.
It allowed me to go back and pull a few paragraphs that apparently didn’t make it through your snip-fest:
[i]Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame’s name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.
Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame’s identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.
The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame’s CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?
Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson’s wife.[/i]
And there’s this – if Rove is lying here, he’s lying under oath, which apparently didn’t trouble people about Clinton but would certainly trouble me:
Karl Rove, President Bush’s deputy chief of staff, has testified that he learned Plame’s name from Novak a few days before telling another reporter she worked at the CIA and played a role in her husband’s mission, according to a lawyer familiar with Rove’s account. Rove has also testified that the first time he saw the State Department memo was when “people in the special prosecutor’s office” showed it to him, said Robert Luskin, his attorney.
And here are a few more sentences the writers for the WaPo felt should be delegated to the end of the story:
[i]The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the memo made it clear that information about Wilson’s wife was sensitive and should not be shared. Yesterday, sources provided greater detail on the memo to The Post.
The material in the memo about Wilson’s wife was based on notes taken by an INR analyst who attended a Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA where Wilson’s intelligence-gathering trip to Niger was discussed.
The memo was drafted June 10, 2003, for Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who asked to be brought up to date on INR’s opposition to the White House view that Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa.
The description of Wilson’s wife and her role in the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was considered “a footnote” in a background paragraph in the memo, according to an official who was aware of the process.
It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson’s trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA.
On July 6, 2003, shortly after Wilson went public on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and in The Post and the New York Times discussing his trip to Niger, the INR director at the time, Carl W. Ford Jr., was asked to explain Wilson’s statements for Powell, according to sources familiar with the events. He went back and reprinted the June 10 memo but changed the addressee from Grossman to Powell.
Ford last year appeared before the federal grand jury investigating the leak and described the details surrounding the INR memo, the sources said. Yesterday he was on vacation in Arkansas, according to his office.[/i]
So, please allow me to repeat my conclusion from above:
Hardly damning proof. Not any proof, actually – but definitely something a good investigator would investigate more thoroughly. A memo that no one knows if Rove read, that had some designation that didn’t indicate info was government classified information. If there is any sort of knowledge standard, this certain won’t satisfy it.
– with the following clarification and additions –
Rove has apparently testified he hadn’t seen the memo, so any designation on the memo is irrelevant in his case. The designation on the memo was unclear, but perhaps the shorthand was known within the circles of those who were the intended audience, and it also wasn’t specific about the information to which it applied.
In other words, no proven illegality. I’m not arguing the investigation should be dropped, but I am definitely arguing that what is thus far in the public knowledge is not a strong case, and you, the MSM and the other scalp-hunters after Rove are doing a whole lot of gun-jumping.
Your post sounds good, and i agree with it. the problem is you are describing something totally different than what you have been doing.
To speculate is one thing. To use that speculation as proof is totally different. That’s what you and elk have been doing.
There are more than enough articles and op/ed pieces around to support the arguments on both sides of this issue. But to say “I think ‘X’ is going on I just don’t have any proof. ‘X’ has to be occuring because ‘Y’ is just so evil that he is guilty of something” - that’s just strawman malarky at its finest.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Okay, so I lied.
I’ll let you in on a little secret - the day I need help from you to understand “complicated political relationships” is the day I suck on the business end of my .12 guage.
Most appealing thing you’ve written yet! Feel free to inquire about any advice regarding political relationships at anytime.
[/quote]
Is Colorado unseasonably dry this summer? Are you dehydrated, elk? You seem a bit delusional.
There is a hyooooge difference between me needing help from the likes of you and vroom, and simply inquiring about it so as to get a good little chuckle. It would be like watching two monkeys trying to fuck a football.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Okay, so I lied.
I’ll let you in on a little secret - the day I need help from you to understand “complicated political relationships” is the day I suck on the business end of my .12 guage.
Most appealing thing you’ve written yet! Feel free to inquire about any advice regarding political relationships at anytime.
Is Colorado unseasonably dry this summer? Are you dehydrated, elk? You seem a bit delusional.
There is a hyooooge difference between me needing help from the likes of you and vroom, and simply inquiring about it so as to get a good little chuckle. It would be like watching two monkeys trying to fuck a football.
[/quote]
If it’s hot in Colorado it’s jelling what’s left of your pea brain in Texas. If you weren’t able to ascertain the sarcasm in that post then you’re even more of an ironhead then I initially thought. You are the definition of ignorance and repulsiveness.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
If it’s hot in Colorado it’s jelling what’s left of your pea brain in Texas. If you weren’t able to ascertain the sarcasm in that post then you’re even more of an ironhead then I initially thought. You are the definition of ignorance and repulsiveness. [/quote]
Whoa Nelly - Did somebody forget to take their Midol today?
Who said I didn’t get the sarcasm? Oh - If I reply to it then I must not get it. Is that how you see it, oh PMSed one?
If I am so repulsive - why do you feel compelled to respond to the majority of my posts? You may not know what it means, but at least you spelled the word correctly.
Rainjack, unless you are completely clueless you know damn well that nobody has claimed proof.
Have you ever heard of the word “opinion” and then perhaps “reasoning” to “justify” the “opinion”? What has proof got to do with personal opinions on a web site?
If I was involved in the investigation I’m sure I’d need proof too before a conviction. However, whatever I may say or do here, it certainly isn’t a conviction by any means.
Maybe you should start looking for that shotgun because it is clear you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but just like to fight, bluster and argue.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, unless you are completely clueless you know damn well that nobody has claimed proof.
Have you ever heard of the word “opinion” and then perhaps “reasoning” to “justify” the “opinion”? What has proof got to do with personal opinions on a web site?
If I was involved in the investigation I’m sure I’d need proof too before a conviction. However, whatever I may say or do here, it certainly isn’t a conviction by any means.
Maybe should start looking for that shotgun because it is clear you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but just like to fight, bluster and argue.[/quote]
Thanks for taking a look inside me and telling me about myself.
Look vroom - this isn’t the first time you’ve worn you space cadet helmet to the party. You have a proven track record of trying to make the tangent the center of discussion. Whether it be by your patented “let’s all sit down and think about it”, or this new one that makes totally bassless allegations and tries to enter them as some sort of debate topic.
If that’s what you choose to do - fine. I reserve the right - as does everyone else on here in possession of cognative brain function - to call bullshit on your left-field accusations.
It doesn’t mean I am an idiot. Far from it. I think it means I can smell you bullshit and refuse to step in it just because you think I should.
Do you know what the topic is? Elk still hasn’t figured it out. And I have serious doubts if you do either.
KevinKovach wrote:
I’m not really a Clinton Fan. In fact I’m starting to consider myself more on the conservative side, but I call Bullshit when I see it.
Thanks for the response, Kevin.
I assume your objection is that Rove shouldn’t be trying to influence the press.
I find that an interesting commentary. It’s been pretty apparent since at LEAST Lincoln’s time, that Chief Executives try to use the press to their advantage. Just finished a biography of Lincoln written by his Law Partner Herndon. Some of the stories of Lincoln using the press were very enlightening.
I can think of another resident of Mt. Rushmore, Theodore Roosevelt, that was the master at this.
It appears to me that Rove was giving Cooper advance notice that the Administration thought wilson was full of shit.
I’m trying not to do the patented democratic e-hater/democratic “it’s only about the blowjob” myopic bit.
However, I just don’t see any way that Rove could have pressured Cooper. Theoretically, therefore, I share your concern about restricting a fair press. I just don’t see this coming anywhere NEAR that level.
As it turned out, Rove’s input appears to have done exactly nothing to either change Cooper’s story (as he pointed out) or make any difference whatsoever.
I promise to keep an open mind on this issue. I will await Fitzgerald’s report.
I’m willing to accept the findings in advance.
Are the democrats?
(I doubt it. I can hear it now: W. pressured, bought him off, Halliburton threatened his aunt, George H.W. Bush took him to dinner: No justice!!!)
JeffR
Jeff, my problem with this whole thing has more to do with the sum of events throughout Bush’s Presedency and prepresedency than this specific event. It’s really more of a gut feeling than anything.
Do I think Rove did anything illegal here? Probably not.
Do I think Rove was perfectly or at all ethical in this and many other incidences. Probably not either.
My gut feeling can’t be proven right or wrong, but this is how I feel and nothing but definitive proof either way can change my mind.
Rainjack, if you have something to say that is on topic, please do… the world is waiting…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, if you have something to say that is on topic, please do… the world is waiting…[/quote]
It’s gonna be a long wait. rainman much like the original rainman is slow, but unfortunately he possesses no special skills, unlike the original rainman did.