Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 You're an ass hole. 380355[/snapback] I didn't know that I was replying to you, unless you are the boyfriend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Brilliant! 380232[/snapback] Simple minds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Well, everyone is doing a good job arguing semantics here. Was she a covert agent? Did he name her by name? Was her husband dirty? The real issue is that the White House stated a long time ago that Rove was not involved at all and that if the person who leaked the information is in the administration, that that person would be fired! It seems VERY VERY CLEAR that Rove was involved and talked to the reporter about Wilson's wife being in CIA. This seems to be enough to be fired per the White House statement. The rest is just spin...ummm...she wasn't a covert agent. Ummmmm...he didn't name her by name, etc. Ummmm...if we knew Rove would be caught, we would never have said that the person would be fired. 380262[/snapback] WRONG! The President, Mr. Bush said, "That person will be 'taken care of'." I have no doubt - nor should anyone on this board - that Mr. Rove will be "taken care of." PS - The real issue is this (IMHO): Are you an enemy of the President - or just a political enemy of the President? There is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 WRONG! The President, Mr. Bush said, "That person will be 'taken care of'." I have no doubt - nor should anyone on this board - that Mr. Rove will be "taken care of." PS - The real issue is this (IMHO): Are you an enemy of the President - or just a political enemy of the President? There is a difference. 380419[/snapback] I'm neither an enemy of the President nor a political enemy of the President. I personally support and respect the President even if I don't always agree with his stance on an issue. I guess that I misunderstood the "That person will be taken care of" to mean that the person would be fired. Possibly, he meant to say that if it was a flunky in the White House, he would be fired, but if it was someone important, we would spin his way out of it. There is a difference. As far as you having no doubt - or anyone on this board - that Mr Rove would be taken care of, I just hope that if he did leak the information, he gets more than just a massage with a happy ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I guess that I misunderstood the "That person will be taken care of" to mean that the person would be fired. Possibly, he meant to say that if it was a flunky in the White House, he would be fired, but if it was someone important, we would spin his way out of it. There is a difference. 380429[/snapback] GWB = Nick Saban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 GWB = Nick Saban 380451[/snapback] GHWB = Lou Saban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Simple minds... 380361[/snapback] Says one of our resident Subject Matter Experts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Says one of our resident Subject Matter Experts... 380643[/snapback] I know you are, but what am I. At what age does one actually get past this sort of sophmoric crap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 I know you are, but what am I. At what age does one actually get past this sort of sophmoric crap? 381283[/snapback] Sophomoric - and hopefully never. I've met grownups - and for the most part they suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SactoBillFan Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Karl Rove is a d-bag. And he's a criminal. And so are all of you who can't speel and have bad gremmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 But the real problem here is with integrity, honesty and security, although at the end of the day, that means nothing to the extreme wings of both parties. Regardless of what Rove actually said or not said, he got into this situation in the first place. He had a beef with someone so he went after his wife, the far-right can defend him all they want (and they have reasons to) but nothing says 'low-life kitty' more than a guy going after an enemy's wife. Ok, this woman may or may not have had the most sensitive job at the CIA, but she worked for the CIA nonetheless. For Rove to be working for the very people we are trusting to take care of business overseas and to protect us, f-ing with the CIA sure makes me question how sincere he really is about protecting us. I really have to wonder if politics does come before security with the White House. 380343[/snapback] Preach it! Now is the time for Bush to show that he is not a Wade Phillips clone. Sticking up for your friends is admirable, but sticking up for them when they've f-ed up at their job is disingenuous. Not all of the evidence is in the light of day, but it's pretty clear that Rove did some skeevy, and possibly criminal, things for political retribution and now he's trying out his Sgt. Schultz impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 But the real problem here is with integrity, honesty and security, although at the end of the day, that means nothing to the extreme wings of both parties. Regardless of what Rove actually said or not said, he got into this situation in the first place. He had a beef with someone so he went after his wife, the far-right can defend him all they want (and they have reasons to) but nothing says 'low-life kitty' more than a guy going after an enemy's wife. 380343[/snapback] He didn't go after the guy's wife, he went after the guy. Wilson was lying about his own report and saying that Cheney had sent him on the trip to begin with. Sounds like Rove was saying, no, the guy only got the job because his wife wanted him to go. The real kitty here is Joe Wilson. If he cared about his wife's "deep cover" he wouldn't have her send him on trips he wasn't qualified for so that he could file reports and later make a name for himself writing op-eds that contradict his own reports. How low does your IQ have to be where you think you can do all this and people aren't going to poke around and find out a little more about you? Her 'cover' was as good as blown when they began this idiotic series of moves with the Niger trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 He didn't go after the guy's wife, he went after the guy. Wilson was lying about his own report and saying that Cheney had sent him on the trip to begin with. Sounds like Rove was saying, no, the guy only got the job because his wife wanted him to go. The real kitty here is Joe Wilson. If he cared about his wife's "deep cover" he wouldn't have her send him on trips he wasn't qualified for so that he could file reports and later make a name for himself writing op-eds that contradict his own reports. How low does your IQ have to be where you think you can do all this and people aren't going to poke around and find out a little more about you? Her 'cover' was as good as blown when they began this idiotic series of moves with the Niger trip. 382424[/snapback] QUESTION: Is it clear that she had the authority to send anyone on trips? Or, do you know of any credible sources that say he made trips on her authority? I think the answer to this may unravel a lot of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 QUESTION: Is it clear that she had the authority to send anyone on trips? Or, do you know of any credible sources that say he made trips on her authority? I think the answer to this may unravel a lot of things. 382429[/snapback] She apparantly was not at a level to authorize the trips. Her "equivalent" rank at the CIA was that of a major. Basically, staff. She did however, suggest his name and grase the skids for him to go to Niger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 She apparantly was not at a level to authorize the trips. Her "equivalent" rank at the CIA was that of a major. Basically, staff. She did however, suggest his name and grase the skids for him to go to Niger. 382461[/snapback] Thanks, I thought that sounded curious, she has been called a "low level operative", and "someone authorizing trips" many times in the same breath. It doesn't seem to me that it can be both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Thanks, I thought that sounded curious, she has been called a "low level operative", and "someone authorizing trips" many times in the same breath. It doesn't seem to me that it can be both. 382472[/snapback] It's all just spin, deflection and justification anyway. It still amazes me that so many fairly intelligent people will simply lap up whatever is fed to them by their party of choice. I know there are cases where I am as guilty of this as anyone, but Karl Rove supporters are taking it to a new level. The facts, Jack: 1. He gave her name (or close enough), no matter what the context, and he shouldn't have. 2. The President clearly implied that whoever it was who gave her name would be fired at least. 3. There is now nothing but backtracking, rationalization, spin and damage control from the right. But the bottom line is, no matter what is said or done in support of #3, #1 and #2 remain the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 It's all just spin, deflection and justification anyway. It still amazes me that so many fairly intelligent people will simply lap up whatever is fed to them by their party of choice. I know there are cases where I am as guilty of this as anyone, but Karl Rove supporters are taking it to a new level. The facts, Jack: 1. He gave her name (or close enough), no matter what the context, and he shouldn't have. 2. The President clearly implied that whoever it was who gave her name would be fired at least. 3. There is now nothing but backtracking, rationalization, spin and damage control from the right. But the bottom line is, no matter what is said or done in support of #3, #1 and #2 remain the same. The irony setting on my multimeter doesn't go that high. I think it's fried now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 The irony setting on my multimeter doesn't go that high. I think it's fried now. 382770[/snapback] Some other facts: 1. The only people frothing at the mouth because of this story were those who had a sincere dislike of Karl Rove long before any "revelations" came out. In other words, this story will end up having less effect on D.C. politics than the Nationals trading for Jose Guillen last winter. 2. The more information that comes out of this story, the more it seems that Rove did not break the law. In mentioning how Wilson got his gig in Niger, he did 'blow' Plame's cover (at least to one person) but that cover was pretty flimsy as is - to the point where reporters were contacting Rove and telling him about it. 3. If Plame's cover was so important, she wouldn't have risked it by greasing the wheels to send her husband on a trip to Niger that he would later lie about several times - about what he found, what he reported, and who sent him. When you have your "covert" CIA wife pulling strings for you, it's probably best not to perpetuate lies about the sitting POTUS in national newspapers because, believe it or not, other people will be interested in finding out a little more about you and how you got the job you lied about. 4. Joe Wilson is an extremely disingenuous person at best and a pathetic partisan hack at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Some other facts: 4. Joe Wilson is an extremely disingenuous person at best and a pathetic partisan hack at worst. 382779[/snapback] That's Karl Rove, exactly. He's just much better at his job than Joe Wilson. Both sides are being equally disingenuous, unpardonably partisan, and looking unbelievably stupid in this entire ordeal. In other words, business as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 That's Karl Rove, exactly. He's just much better at his job than Joe Wilson. Both sides are being equally disingenuous, unpardonably partisan, and looking unbelievably stupid in this entire ordeal. In other words, business as usual. 382791[/snapback] Pardon me if I missed something (I'm not going to read 7 pages of this). It seems, in this matter, Rove basically said "That's what I heard". How is that partisan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts