Karl Rove - Page 5

mikester · 07-11-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cowtown
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.

I'm a liberal as defined on this board and even I only hear static when kennedy speaks.

legion · 07-11-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mikester
I'm a liberal as defined on this board and even I only hear static when kennedy speaks.

Is that what comes out? I just hit "mute".

speeder · speeder's Garage

So now there is basically no doubt that it was Rove? Is that the latest? And Bush has vowed publicly that whomever leaked her identity would be fired? For the last two years? So what are we waiting for here? Time to hang that fat POS by the nuts. Traitorous piece of garbage.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by speeder
So now there is basically no doubt that it was Rove? Is that the latest?

Not so fast, there, Denis. I'm sure there's sufficient "plausible deniability" left to keep Rove off death row and out of the unemployment line.

lendaddy · 07-11-2005, 02:50 PM

It "seems" Rove told him it was wilsons wife that had him sent to Niger, and that she worked for the CIA(which apparently everyone knew). I haven't seen anywhere that he said or knew she was an "agent".

bryanthompson · bryanthompson's Garage

Quote:

And Bush has vowed publicly that whomever leaked her identity would be fired?

Did he say that specifically? If Rove has been his puppetmaster all along, as you lefties claim, he wouldn't have allowed Bush to say something that powerful.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071001000_pf.html

Quote:

Cooper, according to an internal Time e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine, spoke with Rove before Novak's column was published. In the conversation, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue.
...
"Rove did not mention her name to Cooper," Luskin said. "This was not an effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true."

In particular, Rove was urging caution because then-CIA Director George J. Tenet was about to issue a statement regarding Iraq's alleged interest in African uranium and its inaccurate inclusion in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. Tenet took the blame for allowing a misleading paragraph into the speech, but Tenet also said that the president, vice president and other senior officials were never briefed on Wilson's report.

After the investigation into the leak began, Luskin said, Rove signed a waiver in December 2003 or January 2004 authorizing prosecutors to speak to any reporters Rove had previously engaged in discussion, which included Cooper.

"His written waiver included the world," Luskin said. "It was intended to be a global waiver. . . . He wants to make sure that the special prosecutor has everyone's evidence. That reflects someone who has nothing to hide."

Cooper had indicated he would go to jail rather than expose a confidential source, but he agreed last week to cooperate with the grand jury after getting clearance from his source to testify. Luskin said Cooper had been clear to testify all along -- because of the waiver signed 18 months ago -- but that the waiver was "reaffirmed" on Wednesday, the day of a hearing to decide whether he and Miller would go to jail.

bryanthompson · bryanthompson's Garage

Traitorous piece of garbage

harsh words... It's not like he hid documents in his socks or anything.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 07-11-2005, 02:57 PM

Nothing will happen to him while Rep. are in power across the board. Do you realize that McCain is the loan senator, in all of the senate, holding hearings on ethics/misconduct.

The real ethics committee won't schedule anything.

Here's an example. In Clinton's term, the committee held 128 hours of testimony regarding the "Christmas Card list" scandal.

Getting to the bottom of what was happening at Abu Graib? 3 hours.

Now that's a party of integrity.

lendaddy · 07-11-2005, 02:59 PM

My guess is that in follow up interviews with others about Roves claim (wife sent Wilson) someone else outted the secret-agent part. My guess anyway (which also explains why the two reporters were being so protective)

lendaddy · 07-11-2005, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Nothing will happen to him while Rep. are in power across the board. Do you realize that McCain is the loan senator, in all of the senate, holding hearings on ethics/misconduct.

The real ethics committee won't schedule anything.

Here's an example. In Clinton's term, the committee held 128 hours of testimony regarding the "Christmas Card list" scandal.

Getting to the bottom of what was happening at Abu Graib? 3 hours.

Now that's a party of integrity.

The dems are the ones holding up the ethics committee Shaun. They claim not to like the rules so they are boycotting. Truth is they don't want Lott to be cleared. Lott has all but begged to have hearing on himself.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 07-11-2005, 03:17 PM

LOL Len! Are you talking about the House? First, that was settled. Second, the Rep. were changing the rules specifically to protect DeLay. That's integrity! third, the Rep. run the committee, they can schedule anything they want with the current rules in place.

Integrity. Len. Integity. Your party has so little of it. My god man, your party lets you down over and over, your like a poor beaten dog that comes back to its master time and again, only to be hit by a bat. Just how do you get that blood out of your eyes?

A small cut of the story on Dems blocking the change in rules:

GOP to Reverse Ethics Rule Blocking New DeLay Probe
January Change Led Democrats to Shut Down Panel

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01

House Republican leaders, acknowledging that ethics disputes are taking a heavy toll on the party's image, decided yesterday to rescind a controversial rule change that led to the three-month shutdown of the ethics committee, according to officials who participated in the talks.

Republicans touched off a political uproar in January by changing a rule that had required the ethics committee to continue considering a complaint against a House member if there was a deadlock between the committee's five Republicans and five Democrats. The January change reversed this, calling for automatic dismissal of an ethics complaint when a deadlock occurs.

lendaddy · 07-11-2005, 03:27 PM

Definitely got my names messed up. Either way.....

CamB · CamB's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
My guess is that in follow up interviews with others about Roves claim (wife sent Wilson) someone else outted the secret-agent part. My guess anyway (which also explains why the two reporters were being so protective)

I agree - if I was a betting man, I'd put money on that scenario.

I still think Rove is at least semi-guilty, but just so very, very careful that he won't get caught in anything. Manipulation of public opinion at any cost...

Shaun @ Tru6 · 07-11-2005, 03:32 PM

Either way what? Either your party stands for something or it's a bunch of scoundrels who make up the rules as they go along. Now that's something to be proud of. That's a party to which I want to belong.

And the fact is you are wrong. one time, admit it. the Reps saw the political damage they were doing and rescinded any notion of rules changes.

Your party runs the committee. they decide what gets brought up. Geez man, I thought you were better than that. Credibility keeps dwindling.

ready for the bat?

Shaun @ Tru6 · 07-11-2005, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
Definitely got my names messed up. Either way.....

And lastly, Senate Committee on Ethics? Anything? What you got? How are the dems blocking anything there? Google away my friend, it all boils down to cronyism, protectionism, and a clear lack of integrity.

lendaddy · 07-11-2005, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
And lastly, Senate Committee on Ethics? Anything? What you got? How are the dems blocking anything there? Google away my friend, it all boils down to cronyism, protectionism, and a clear lack of integrity.

Fair enough, we're all evil. Ya got me, In fact I just rolled a girlscout for her cookies.

mikester · 07-11-2005, 03:52 PM

Mmmmm Samoas.

lendaddy · 07-11-2005, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mikester
Mmmmm Samoas.

The Filthy little skank was out of those.....but I did clean up on the mint ones!

jyl · jyl's Garage

A collection of bits and pieces on the Rove thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

Moneyguy1 · 07-11-2005, 04:46 PM

If Rove said anything to Cooper like "It was Wilson's wife" rather than actually specifically naming her, it would appear to me to be similas to the hair splitting that Clinton did "I did not have sex with that woman" or the debate about the meaning of the word "is".

So, if Mr Rove did what Cooper said he did, he will probably escape by means of a technicality.