Ya ya, Karl Rove blah blah blah...

What this about 'anal foreplay'? Now this thread is gettin interest'n! Please provide details...

What about the butt?!

I think maybe you have missed the other point. The admin has steadfastly said no one was involved, which has been perceived as meaning no one was involved in suppling any information to this issue to the press-there was no leak from the admin.

Well, at least two admin people did talk to the press about this story.

I suggest that it was to inform the press that the trip by Wilson was not on behalf of the administration. That's fine. But why didn't Rove own up to that when asked.

So the story has gone beyond the original story to the story of yes there were apparently misleading statements by the admin. Bush has gone from dismissing anyone involved in leaks to "no one who has committed a crime can work in his admin". Bush SR went from a near treasoness statement to silence.

Again, her name was going to be published in two days. Neither Rove or Libby had anything to do with that. That was the leak guys and again notta, zero, nothing to do with it. What they did amounts to discussing it after it happened.

Think about what you're accusing them of....

Receiving info from the press then leaking it to the press????????

notta is spelled nada. FYI.

You could also say zilch.

No it is the same old thing. Rove did discuss the information with the press. The public doesn't have a schedule of events in the foreground. They do remember the admin saying nothing came from them. They were not involved in the story. Is that completely truthful and factual?

Nope, in Rovania we traded the space in "a lot" for an extra "d" in nada.

Like I said it's nice here:)

Wrong again, nothing did come from them. Remove those two from existance and it goes down exactly the same.

Joel, it doesn't matter if without them that it would have gone the same.

Rove did talk to the press and discussed her. His statement and the admin's would leave one to believe that never happened. That's their problem.


Now they will need to rely upon exact legal definitions of "leak", "outing", "covert", " devulging her name", etc.

Rove just should have said he talked to the reporter to clear up an issue.

Ok, I'll give you this. Rove knew he didn't out Plame, and therefore when it all hit the fan he saw no reason to admit his discussion (though innocent and non malicious) with Cooper if only to keep his name out of it.

The way it appears, he had absolutely nothing, nada:), zero to do with her "outing". So when asked he can certainly say no. He doesn't even have to question the meaning of words or play tricks with them to be both innocent and truthful. That's the difference.

Damn near every admin since Johnson.

I see that Bush now says he'll fire anyone who "committed a crime" in connection with the Plame leak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071800157.html

Well, I'd certainly hope so.

I guess the new rule is - you can leak, you can conceal it, you can have the Press Secretary lie to the public about it, and you can even get caught. As long as you avoid a criminal conviction, you're still employed by the White House.

Again, you guys are getting caught up in the minutia, not the substance.

Someone leaked her to the press,(even this person did not commit a crime) but we know it wasn't Rove. That's it, it's over, she's out, you can't put her back in, finito, no mas, thanks for coming out, tip your waiters and waitresses. Get it?

No one, Rove or other learning of it after this event was involved in her "outing". (again we must forget she wasn't "in" but I digress). Do you not see how the press is manipulating this story? All upset over soundbytes, and the true culprit is unknown yet no one cares.!!!!????!!!!

LOL, pot, kettle, black . . . .

And that folks, is what we call.........drive-by ignorance:)

And that come back is what I call lame.

And your comeback to his comeback is even more lame.

And your comeback to my comeback to your comeback to his comeback...

Moving right along then.



The basic jist the left is trying to put out is:

Rove was upset that Wilson made Bush look bad with his investigative trip, so he outed Wilsons undercover/covert CIA agent wife as revenge or punishment for his actions.

Am I wrong?

Ok, if I'm right, does it bother you that that story is completely false yet they continue to push it? Now some on the left have abandoned it (as it's too out there) and are pushing for some technicality to get Rove on. I mean really think about that.......think about how much energy and lip service they are expending trying to "get" Rove as opposed to finding out who actually leaked her status. Then once you realize that.....think back to the fake outrage over the "outing"of a CIA agent.....which they no mlonger really care about apparently:rolleyes:

you live in a strange land my friend. Are you hoping to become an American Citizen someday?

Its kinda true. The bit which you may "win" this argument on is that it wasn't Rove who did this.

What you don't seem to care that you are "losing" on is that on the face of it, someone high enough up that you should be concerned (but not necessarily Rove, or necessarily breaking the law) in your Govt is leaking information to manipulate press coverage. What's worse is that this leaking either disregards the impact to some some peoples' personal lives, or - worse - appears to be motivated by malice.

I agree - its about integrity. I thought the article from Dick Morris that Fintstone posted earlier was pretty good, but I found the part referring to Rove's "integrity" pretty hard to swallow. He may well be loyal, but generally he seems to be a guy who would consider no trick too low.