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...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 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? 382855[/snapback] I wasn't really talking about Rove. I was talking about all the reporters, pundits, partisan hacks being interviewed, and people here. We don't know what happened in the real story yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 The irony setting on my multimeter doesn't go that high. I think it's fried now. 382770[/snapback] Do you really think that saying things like this makes your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 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 in D.C. than the Nationals trading for Jose Guillen last winter. 382779[/snapback] bull sh--. Guillen's hitting .306 and leading the team in runs, home runs, and RBIs. And yet, you make it sound like that trade was almost as stupid as this Rove/Plame/Novak/Time/Newsweek garbage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 bull sh--. Guillen's hitting .306 and leading the team in runs, home runs, and RBIs. And yet, you make it sound like that trade was almost as stupid as this Rove/Plame/Novak/Time/Newsweek garbage... 382903[/snapback] No, Guillen is having a great year. What I'm saying is the Rove/Plame/Novak/Time/Newsweek nonsense will end up having less effect on D.C. politics than a baseball trade that worked out really well for the local team. Damn, I should've included the word "politics" in there to begin with...I'll fix it. (and now I have to get all this crap that you threw at me off... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 Do you really think that saying things like this makes your point? A lot quicker and easier than documenting the irony in announcing your disgust with regurgitating what has been lapped up from your party of choice, while you regurgitate what you've lapped up from your party of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 I'm exhausted at this point, but apparently I'm in charge of the Rove coverage around here so here's the latest: Rove email WASHINGTON (AP) - After mentioning a CIA operative to a reporter, Bush confidant Karl Rove alerted the president's No. 2 security adviser about the interview and said he tried to steer the journalist away from allegations the operative's husband was making about faulty Iraq intelligence. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote in the e-mail to Hadley. "When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this." So Rove's plan to smear Joe Wilson was to wait for reporters to call him on unrelated matters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 A lot quicker and easier than documenting the irony in announcing your disgust with regurgitating what has been lapped up from your party of choice, while you regurgitate what you've lapped up from your party of choice. 383049[/snapback] I'm not perfect, but at least I'll admit it. Why try when there are so many like-minded individuals here to do all the work for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 I'm exhausted at this point, but apparently I'm in charge of the Rove coverage around here so here's the latest: Rove email So Rove's plan to smear Joe Wilson was to wait for reporters to call him on unrelated matters? 383070[/snapback] The plan of attack is to make this all about Joe Wilson because he's the one who broke the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 I'm not perfect, but at least I'll admit it. Why try when there are so many like-minded individuals here to do all the work for you? 383439[/snapback] Such a victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 I'm exhausted at this point, but apparently I'm in charge of the Rove coverage around here ... And a fine job you're doing too, son. Get to work on that Grand Jury leak, because there's still enough questions for this to go either way, or nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 Such a victim. 383452[/snapback] Thanks for the pop psychologist analysis, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't talking to you and could do without your one liners. That said, I'm sure this will bring on more, as it's clear you love those one liners. It's nice to know that you care, however, and that you are so ready to come to the aid of your internet buddies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 Thanks for the pop psychologist analysis, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't talking to you and could do without your one liners. That said, I'm sure this will bring on more, as it's clear you love those one liners. Still having a difficult time with the concept of the public message board, huh? Maybe someday. It's nice to know that you care, however, and that you are so ready to come to the aid of your internet buddies. 383474[/snapback] I wasn't coming to the aid of anyone. I just like to use the mallot in the "whack a whiner" game. It's fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 It's nice to know that you care, however, and that you are so ready to come to the aid of your internet buddies. 383474[/snapback] Which one of us "internet buddies" was in such great peril that we needed Darin to rescue us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Another op-ed by someone with a clue. Mark Stein As her weirdly self-obsesssed husband Joseph C. Wilson IV conceded on CNN the other day, she wasn't a ''clandestine officer'' and, indeed, hadn't been one for six years. So one can only ''leak'' her name in the sense that one can ''leak'' the name of the checkout clerk at Home Depot. Back when Woodrow Wilson was running for president, he had a campaign song called ''Wilson, That's All.'' If only. With Joe Wilson, it's never all. He keeps coming back like a song. But in the real world there's only one scandal in this whole wretched business -- that the CIA, as part of its institutional obstruction of the administration, set up a pathetic ''fact-finding mission'' that would be considered a joke by any serious intelligence agency and compounded it by sending, at the behest of his wife, a shrill politically motivated poseur who, for the sake of 15 minutes' celebrity on the cable gabfest circuit, misled the nation about what he found. This controversy began, you'll recall, because Wilson objected to a line in the president's State of the Union speech that British intelligence had discovered that Iraq had been trying to acquire ''yellowcake'' -- i.e., weaponized uranium -- from Africa. This assertion made Bush, in Wilson's incisive analysis, a ''liar'' and Cheney a ''lying sonofabitch.'' In fact, the only lying sonafabitch turned out to be Yellowcake Joe. Just about everybody on the face of the earth except Wilson, the White House press corps and the moveon.org crowd accepts that Saddam was indeed trying to acquire uranium from Africa. Don't take my word for it; it's the conclusion of the Senate intelligence report, Lord Butler's report in the United Kingdom, MI6, French intelligence, other European services -- and, come to that, the original CIA report based on Joe Wilson's own briefing to them. Why Yellowcake Joe then wrote an article for the New York Times misrepresenting what he'd been told by senior figures from Major Wanke's regime in Niger is known only to him. The British suicide bombers and the Iranian nuke demands are genuine crises. The Valerie Plame game is a pseudo-crisis. If you want to talk about Niger or CIA reform, fine. But if you seriously think the only important aspect of a politically motivated narcissist kook's drive-thru intelligence mission to a critical part of the world is the precise sequence of events by which some White House guy came to mention the kook's wife to some reporter, then you've departed the real world and you're frolicking on the wilder shores of Planet Zongo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Another op-ed by someone with a clue. Mark Stein 383874[/snapback] That was fabulous. Did you hear the latest? Now someone from Time says that someone on Cheney's staff told him Plame's name and not Rove, except that Rove told him too and WAS the source... I've got a feeling this is going to get a LOT more absurd before it dies...the ONLY person I respect in this is Judith Miller, for sticking to her principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Who's Karl?!? Ding! Pepporoni HotPockets® gotta go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 That was fabulous. Did you hear the latest? Now someone from Time says that someone on Cheney's staff told him Plame's name and not Rove, except that Rove told him too and WAS the source... I've got a feeling this is going to get a LOT more absurd before it dies...the ONLY person I respect in this is Judith Miller, for sticking to her principles. 383915[/snapback] That was probably one of the best op-ed's I've seen in a while, but my ears are still going to be ringing with Flightsuit-Halliburton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 That was probably one of the best op-ed's I've seen in a while, but my ears are still going to be ringing with Flightsuit-Halliburton. 383958[/snapback] ...despite the obvious fact that the themes discussed in the op-ed are just as applicable to the Lewinski "crisis" as they are to the Plame "crisis". But I'm sure we'll see through the magic of Frenklevision that this meaningless sh-- is important only when Republicans are involved... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 ...despite the obvious fact that the themes discussed in the op-ed are just as applicable to the Lewinski "crisis" as they are to the Plame "crisis". But I'm sure we'll see through the magic of Frenklevision that this meaningless sh-- is important only when Republicans are involved... 384065[/snapback] <Catches latest load of crap and examines it carefully> Translation: Dispicable Liberal Smearmeister (Gene Frenkle) will be endlessly vilified if he or she (Ya never know folks) attempts to use the same tactics that the Honorable Conservative Commentator (Ghost of BiB) just used. <Drops crap in plastic container> Yep, Same Old Sh*t Note: I'll be at sea for the next week or so, feel free to flame away till I get back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 <Catches latest load of crap and examines it carefully> Translation: Dispicable Liberal Smearmeister (Gene Frenkle) will be endlessly vilified if he or she (Ya never know folks) attempts to use the same tactics that the Honorable Conservative Commentator (Ghost of BiB) just used. <Drops crap in plastic container> Yep, Same Old Sh*t Note: I'll be at sea for the next week or so, feel free to flame away till I get back. 384108[/snapback] That's "Mr. Honorable Conservative Commentator". Hey, the guy agrees with everything I've been saying all along. Why shouldn't I think it's a good piece? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts