SilverNRed

I dunno. Revenge? There are you happy? He did it for revenge. He was mad because her husband did a piss-poor job and was called on it publicly by the Senate Intelligence committee. Wait, no, I guess if the truth about Joe Wilson was out (or coming out) he wouldn't have any reason to do that. Hmmmm, let's see why did he do it? It didn't seem to benefit him or the President any.....

THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT!!! IGNORE THAT!!! THE IMPORTANT THING IS KARL ROVE AND NO ONE ELSE!!!!!! /G.F.

Seems like an incredibly easy question.....

Uh, actually it has a lot to do with Rove's actions, because the whole thing started when Cooper asked to interview Rove about Joe Wilson. Calls into question Wilson's motives, qualifications, and integrity - as well as his wife's integrity if she's a covert CIA agent who uses her job to send her husband on trips to Niger that he isn't qualified to take (not the best way to stay covert, IMO, but then again I've never been in the CIA). The main point is there's a lot more to this story than "Rove leaked CIA agent's name" (for revenge, which you seem to be sure of) but ignore everything else and keep trying to oversimplify until everything fits your world view. Has he been charged with anything? Convicted? Convicted by anyone other than Chris Matthews and Michael "Koran Abuse!" Isikoff? No? Oh, then why not be reasonable and take a wait and see approach to facts coming out slowly about an old story? OK, yeah, that last one was a silly question....

Eagerness to ignore information + outrage + outrage that there isn't more outrage = Frenkle? God, this board has collapsed today. It's all grammar and math lessons!

In other words, you had never heard any of the information from the Washington Post article I posted yesterday and, in general, would prefer not to hear information the clashes with your pathetic, myopic view of the world. I guess it's easier to make judgements and stick to your guns when you go out of your way to ignore the information you don't want to hear. Carry on.

This thread has made me wish we could go back to Gene Frenkle's crazy rants about Karl Rove and Valerie Plame from yesterday.

That is so close to going in my sig in place of the "Retatta" reset from a couple weeks ago.

OK, so after we confirm that it was a Muslim group patterned after Al Qaeda, will the BBC then resume using the word "terrorist" (and retroactively change "bombers" to "terrorists" in the same online articles that they have previously retroactively altered to remove "terrorists") to describe them? I think we know they won't.

Pick a winner between Tom and I, and I promise I'll stop.

I hate to keep being a pain in the ass, but.... the word "terrorist" speaks to their actions and their strategy, accurately in both cases. I don't see why that isn't objective. Unfortunately (for the terrorists) the word has a negative connotation because most people recognize that: 1. Their strategy involves the targetting and murder of civilians. 2. They have about a zero success rate if you take the long view.

I am, but only because I'm right.

How is "terrorist" subjective? Isn't that what they're doing? They aren't trying to defeat UK militarily are they? But they are trying to affect policy by scaring UK citizens (or "terrorizing" them), right? "Terrorist" is 100% accurate description of their strategy.

Is that all they do? Why not go the extra mile and say "terrorist"? They're trying to change the world by "terrorizing" citizens of a country that they cannot defeat militarily. Using bombers puts us on the same level as them, which we are not. Technically, there are American "bombers" in Iraq and Afghanistan - the guys dropping the bombs from the sky during battle, but that's hardly the same as blowing up a bus, train, or plane full of civilians. There's a difference, but the media likes to pretend it doesn't exist. Heck, why not just label them "persons"? After all, they are all people. People who target civilians with bombs.

mmmmm....self-parody.

My issue is that they're ignoring the most accurate term in favor of something vague and PC.

Or use facts.

Well, read my posts at least. I agree with what you wrote entirely. The only problem with the very last part - the charges - is that it's only a crime if you knowingly reveal the name of an undercover agent and that's going to be near impossible to prove, especially in this case. Rove's lawyer could easily argue that due to Plame's obvious involvement in getting her husband that trip to Niger, he had no reason to think she was undercover.

I don't mind. Give our piss-poor media a pass for the small things and they'll take a pass on all the big things they get wrong.

Obviously the BBC thinks so or they wouldn't be retroactively changing the word "terrorist" on their website in all the first reports on the bombings.

That is word for word what Michael Isikoff told Chris Matthews last night on Hardball (I couldn't change the channel fast enough). Funny, he hasn't been charged with anything and dimwits like Matthews and Isikoff have already convicted him. The sloppy coverage of this thing - almost foaming at the mouth because they think they have "Watergate 2" on their hands - is almost surreal.

I believe the point is that BBC is "sticking to the approved lingo." Rather than use the word terrorist, which has such a negative connotation, it's best to go with something innocuous like "bombers" which labels them only by what they did (and not what they are) so the media can't be blamed for passing judgement or taking sides in the war. And thank goodness for that. The worst part about the BBC and most of the mainstream media over here is not that they can't differentiate between us and the terrorists; it's that they don't want to.

The lack of outrage about a story where we probably know about 25% of what happened. Again, that's something we don't know. Did Cooper already know who Plame was? How many reporters knew who Plame was? Even Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC basically admitted that her job wasn't much of a secret around Washington. Behold! Karl Rove's REVENGE: Your Picture......in VANITY FAIR!!!!!! As you attend a party with Robert DeNiro and Nicole Kidman!!!!! Gee, Karl, next time go easy on 'em. They're totally !@#$ed now. Yes, that's what happened. Do you even know who Wilson is? He's had a bit of trouble with honesty himself. From the Washington Post: and and So the covert agent that eeeeevil Karl Rove wanted to destroy was using her position to send her unqualified, idiot husband to Niger to file a false report and later get famous by blowing the whistle on his own report. But, no, I'm sure you're right. This is simply a case of Karl Rove using his powers for "revenge" because someone dared to stand up to Bush. There's absolutely nothing more to the story. Move along. Nothing to see here. BTW, that Washington Post link is over a year old, so I'm sure you're familiar with all that information. Ranting on the issue without that information wouldn't make any sense, now would it? If anyone knows what PPP was like during the Lewinsky scandal, please inform myself and Frenkle so that we can sleep tonight. Does Wilson's half-assed report, Plame's recommending her husband for something he wasn't qualified for, or our media's piss-poor reporting of a story they barely understand count as "really nasty, dangerous stuff"? Where's the outrage??? BTW, "Bushland"? Nice nod to Maureen Dowd..... mmmmm....Irony.

Sounds about right.

Forget the government. Thanks to donations to the red cross that and telethon right after 9/11, didn't the average 9/11 family rake in a couple million bucks or so? Another telethon on network TV could easily rake in tens of millions of dollars and that would go a long way towards helping thsoe families. Unfortunately, Hollywood has absolutely no motivation to do something like this because they don't like the war. They just like to support the troops....by doing absolutely nothing. (Similar to Chris Rock bashing everything the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing during his opening Oscar monologue and then finishing by giving a "shout out" to them. Rang pretty hollow.)