Karl Rove

[lendaddy]

There is much more to this, give it a couple days.

[techweenie]

This is a classic case of the pundits of the right applying 'situational ethics.'

The CBS Bush memo was a fake.

The Niger "yellowcake documents" were fake.

The underlying claims of the Bush memo were backed up by an independent source.

The underlying claims of the Niger letter were false.

CBS apologizes in embarrassment.

The Bush administration -- having been informed of the forgery of the Niger documents -- still bundles it up with other unsubstantiated rumors to support the urgency of attacking a country at enormous cost in lives, money and international goodwill.

...and yet, somehow in all of this, one of the people trying to stop the waste of lives and money is supposed to be such a bad guy that a treasonous act against his wife is justified?

I've seen a lot of pretzel logic from you guys, but this just about takes the (yellow) cake.

[Moneyguy1]

AOL has an unofficial "click on" poll going. As of 9:00 West Coast time today July 11 it is 71% concluding that Rove deliberately said too much and 5% saying he mistakenly said too much while 12% say the matter is "unclear". To date 26,600 "votes"

[928ram]

Clear this up...

After the "outing" wasn't it found that if anyone had done it, it was Wilson and Plame themselves? One of those "worst kept secrets" that everyone knew about.

Didn't the CIA address Plames position as being "operative" by job label only; not a spy, but someone who handles class material. Didn't they also clarify that her position didn't allow the "treasonous outing" to apply, plus reasonably common knowledge of her position would negate the "outing" as poor judgement at best?

Didn't the 9/11 commission find evidence that the yellowcake thing was legit and that Wilson either flubbed or covered up his finding?

Didn't the prosecutor in the case publically state the Rove was not the focus of their case?

[928ram]

I vote unclear

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by techweenie


The underlying claims of the Bush memo were backed up by an independent source.

Who?

[techweenie]

Robert Strong. Col. Bobby W. Hodges. Bill Burkett. Marian Carr Knox.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by techweenie
Robert Strong. Col. Bobby W. Hodges. Bill Burkett. Marian Carr Knox.

They said it was real?

[techweenie]

You didn't read what I posted... nor, apparently your own question ...again.

[bryanthompson]

Duh, lenn, you idiot, you're missing the (ridiculous) "the documents are fake, but the message was true" point tech was trying to make. Serious of the charge, and all of that bull shat.

[Moneyguy1]

AOL pool up to 79k votes. "deliberately" still holding at 71% 1 AM West Coast time

[Mule]

News from the nation is that Rove kidnapped the Lindburgh baby.

[Moneyguy1]

mule:

If (just if) there is any provable indication of wrongdoing to come out, the president should publicly jump on this and defuse it, even if it means sacrificing Rove. The public's faith in the presidency is far more important than loyalty to a single individual. There has been far too much in the way of unanswered questions in the administration and these are what drags the president's ratings down. I would like to see this trend reversed and see people's faith restored in government to some extent.

[techweenie]

Thanks, Bryan, for the unsubtle clarification.

:-)

For anyone who cares:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31727-2004Sep18?language=printer

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
AOL pool up to 79k votes. "deliberately" still holding at 71% 1 AM West Coast time

I'm surprised it's only 71%. Then again 50% (53%?) of this country still thinks Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

This real stat says it all though: 76% of regular (3 more more times per week) Fox News watchers have seen 11 or more tapings of The Jerry Springer show in the last 6 months.

[Moneyguy1]

Well that might explain a lot of things........

[cowtown]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
If (just if) there is any provable indication of wrongdoing to come out, the president should publicly jump on this and defuse it, even if it means sacrificing Rove.

Really? To what end? He sacrifices Rove, and Ted Kennedy's up there the next day shouting "See! He was dirty! Bush is a sleazebag! Now let's go after the rest of them!"

Would firing Rove in any way appease those critical of Bush? Would the mainstream public even notice? I don't think so.

[Moneyguy1]

No, cow..I do not see it that way. The ONLY way to head off a scandal has been proven over and over again. Admit from the start there has been a problem and get it over with.

What if Clinton had said.."OK...I did it...So what?" Then the "loyal opposition" has no ammunition to use..no conspiracy theories, no "hearings", no nothing.

Believe it or not, I think the public DOES care. And, is getting increasingly tireds of the vitriol on both sides.

What is so sacred about Karl? No one is indispensible.

If you were in the president's position, would you protect "to the death" anyone who could prove to be an embarrasment to you or your agenda? I know I would can such a person in a heartbeat. Sets a precident and keeps the rest of your folks in line.

[widebody911]

I imagine that Rove has enough Bush dirt under his fingernails that he won't be thrown under the bus anytime soon.

Did anyone see the Rove cameo on Family Guy a few weeks ago?

[cowtown]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
No one is indispensible.

In general I think this is true. At the absolute top-level of politics? I'm not sure. To hear some tell it, Bush couldn't function without Rove. Who knows? There'd definitely be a gaping hole in the admin.

Given the recent tenor of supreme court debates, Bolton, Iraq, etc., I guess we just don't agree that Rove's firing would sooth the left and make them stand down a bit. I think we're in for a rough three years no matter who comes, goes, or stays.