Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Karl Rove named as source in Plame outting

Top News 2005 Valerie Plame Karl Rove Investigation

  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#41 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 03:57 PM

{{{{{{Norville}}}}}} I totally understand.

Been there.

But perhaps the tide is turning in the stupidity of this current regime we have in office.

I certainly do have hope.

There comes a time when the lies and deception and power hungry politicians have to be faced and I think we are close to getting there.

In my opinion it's something that's been boiling for the last 20 years actually.

Call me a liberal.  Call me a Religious Left.  Call me a Peace nik.  Call me anything you like-I in my heart know how I feel, react and love my country.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#42 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 10:03 PM

I don't see it as a Left, Right, Center kind of issue.  

From what I've been reading all over the internet, it started with the claim in the first draft of the President's Speech.  Cheney questioned the claim that Iraq had tried to purchase yellowcake from Africa - Niger in specific.  From information already verified, yellowcake was one element Iraq had plenty of and did not need more of.  Cheney wanted the CIA to investigate.

In 2002, the CIA asked Valerie to recruit her husband, Wilson, to go investigate the claim.  Why?  Because in 1999 Wilson made a report to the Senate that he had been approached by persons who wanted him involved with "sales" from Africa - specifically Niger - to Iraq.

In the 2002 investigation, Wilson claimed he found no evidence that Iraq was attempting to purchase more yellowcake from Africa - specifically Niger.

When the big brouhaha started over the misinformation in the President's Speech about the Nigerian yellowcake, Wilson claimed that Cheney had sent him to Africa to investigate.  Cheney denied doing so.

So, when the investigative reporters started asking questions, Valerie's name was brought up as why Wilson was sent to investigate in 2002.  The person who gave up the information should have just said it was a CIA decision because of Wilson's previous experience with the yellowcake issue between Niger and Iraq.

Now, if the White House had wanted revenge on Wilson and/or his wife, there were other easier non-felony ways to have done it without exposing any of her contacts or operatives working with or under her.  She could have been assigned a desk job in Iraq.  Their taxes could have been audited.  Snapshots of Wilson with gerbils in the bedroom.  

Is Rove stupid enough to expose himself by committing a felony with the possibility of 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine, plus the end of his career?  I don't know.  

I'm still at a loss to understand why, when Cheney doubted the information, Iraq didn't need the yellowcake, there was nothing to substantiate the claim, and the 16 words on the yellowcake had been deleted out of about 9 drafts of the President's Speech, those words got back into the final draft and the President said them believing it to be reliable intelligence.  No wonder the President wants the "leaker" found because I bet he thinks that is the person that set him to look like a liar and a fool in that speech.

Edited by eloisel, 03 July 2005 - 10:13 PM.


#43 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 10:10 PM

Hibblette, on Jul 3 2005, 08:57 PM, said:

Call me a liberal.  Call me a Religious Left.  Call me a Peace nik.  Call me anything you like-I in my heart know how I feel, react and love my country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Call me whatever you want, just don't call me late for breakfast, lunch or dinner!  I like to be called timely for snacks and tea too.

Edited by eloisel, 03 July 2005 - 11:16 PM.


#44 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 10:54 PM

eloisel, on Jul 3 2005, 10:03 PM, said:

Now, if the White House had wanted revenge on Wilson and/or his wife, there were other easier non-felony ways to have done it without exposing any of her contacts or operatives working with or under her.  She could have been assigned a desk job in Iraq.  Their taxes could have been audited.  Snapshots of Wilson with gerbils in the bedroom. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's easier to concoct a destructive conspiracy in which you must involve other government entities that aren't under the administration's direct day-to-day control than to have someone pick up the phone and call a journalist?

#45 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 11:03 PM

eloisel, on Jul 3 2005, 07:03 PM, said:

Is Rove stupid enough to expose himself by committing a felony with the possibility of 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine, plus the end of his career? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably not.  But arrogant enough to assume he can get away with it?  Yes.  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#46 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 11:17 PM

Quote

the 16 words on the yellowcake had been deleted out of about 9 drafts of the President's Speech, those words got back into the final draft and the President said them believing it to be reliable intelligence. No wonder the President wants the "leaker" found because I bet he thinks that is the person that set him to look like a liar and a fool in that speech.

Except that Bush would have known that the yellowcake had been deleted.  It was put back in for the express purpose of scaring the American people into going along with the invasion of Iraq.  Unfortunately, the man is a liar and a fool
Posted Image

#47 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 11:32 PM

Dev F, on Jul 4 2005, 03:54 AM, said:

eloisel, on Jul 3 2005, 10:03 PM, said:

Now, if the White House had wanted revenge on Wilson and/or his wife, there were other easier non-felony ways to have done it without exposing any of her contacts or operatives working with or under her.  She could have been assigned a desk job in Iraq.  Their taxes could have been audited.  Snapshots of Wilson with gerbils in the bedroom. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's easier to concoct a destructive conspiracy in which you must involve other government entities that aren't under the administration's direct day-to-day control than to have someone pick up the phone and call a journalist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is one thing I can tell you for certain about working for the government - if TPTB want to fire you, they talk to their attorneys first, then they fire you.  You'd be surprised what is kept in the personnel files - every bad day where you may have been short or mildly rude to a superior or citizen, made some kind of minor error, viewed a non-government website, sent personal email from your government email account, complained about the organization or policy or procedure, etc.  Annual performance reports are geared specifically so that there is always something that needs to be improved - communication style, learning a foreign language or a new skill for future job needs, etc.  Nothing has to be manufactured because it is there, ready.  Not that I'm paranoid, I just know how it goes.  There really isn't a need to involve other governmental entities or journalists.

#48 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 11:35 PM

Nonny, on Jul 4 2005, 04:03 AM, said:

eloisel, on Jul 3 2005, 07:03 PM, said:

Is Rove stupid enough to expose himself by committing a felony with the possibility of 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine, plus the end of his career? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably not.  But arrogant enough to assume he can get away with it?  Yes.  

Nonny

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is always a possibility - that he thought the White House would cover his butt if he got caught.  If so, he may be worried because Bush has made it quite clear he wants the "leakers" caught and brought to justice.

#49 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 11:57 PM

waterpanther, on Jul 4 2005, 04:17 AM, said:

Quote

the 16 words on the yellowcake had been deleted out of about 9 drafts of the President's Speech, those words got back into the final draft and the President said them believing it to be reliable intelligence. No wonder the President wants the "leaker" found because I bet he thinks that is the person that set him to look like a liar and a fool in that speech.

Except that Bush would have known that the yellowcake had been deleted.  It was put back in for the express purpose of scaring the American people into going along with the invasion of Iraq.  Unfortunately, the man is a liar and a fool

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know that Bush would have known.  The President is juggling a lot of responsibilities - it is "a lot of hard work" you know!  The President isn't running around investigating anything - that is what he has the CIA, FBI, and the rest of Washington for.  He relies on those people to tell him the truth so he can make informed decisions in his job as leader of this nation.  So who would have put those words back into the State of the Union speech?  Libby or Cheney more than likely.  And, that takes us back to the Wilson/Plame business.   Who would have been more likely for Novak to call to verify Wilson's claims there was no yellowcake purchase - Cheney or Rove?  And considering Cheney questioned the claim to begin with, I'd say Libby instead of Cheney.

One thing I sincerely believe is that Bush is neither a liar or a fool.  I think he acts according to his beliefs.  The State of the Union speech did not need those 16 words to bring anyone to the same conclusion that Bush had already reached concerning the danger of Iraq.  And, he is no fool.  What I would like to see before the end of his term is for him to bring the full brunt of his integrity down on top of what is happening in Washington and on top of the Religious Right that would use the Republican Party - or any other party they can get their hooks into - as a tool to further their own agenda at the expense of the nation as a whole.  He doesn't have to worry about winning another election, his dad is out of the running and his brother Jeb has made his own bed with respect to being a viable candidate anytime soon.  It wouldn't surprise me if Bush brought down the Republican Party on his way out if for no other reason than to purge it of the Religious Right.

Edited by eloisel, 04 July 2005 - 12:16 AM.


#50 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 04 July 2005 - 07:52 AM

Absolutely right-it wasn't revenge to out her.

They could've fired and alllll that good stuff.

It's really something deeper then that.

It's because Wilson and his wife were not coming back with the info they wanted.  It was discrediting the whole reason we went to war with Iraq.  The WMD's.

Rove and them want us to believe it was revenge-takes away from the real reason-the fact that there were NO WMD'S.

Yesterday I caught the documentary about Rove on the Sundance Channel and believe me it tells you a lot about this guy.

They actually report that when he was first starting out, he broke into a Democrats office, got some stationary-typed up about the Open House the Democrat was going to have and then passed it around to wino's under bridges and every radical on the nearby campus.  The hook to the invitation-plenty of liquour would be flowing.  Now it may sound trivial and even a little on the punk'd side-but what gets me is he took the stationary without the knowledge of the person whom the stationary belonged to.  Now ya know, I don't know about ya'lls momma's and daddy's, but mine always told me that was stealing.

Karl Rove could care less about this country.  All he cares about is winning.  He is a pathetic, little minded man that has sent my country into an abyss.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#51 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 04 July 2005 - 10:24 AM

If revenge wasn't about the report, then what would it have been for?  It was Wilson himself that made the claim outing his wife was for revenge.

Unfortunately, Rove didn't send this country "into an abyss" all by himself.  He has had more than enough help from the people in this country who won't quit b*&tching, whining and pointing fingers instead of getting down to the business of solving problems.

#52 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 04 July 2005 - 11:24 AM

eloisel, on Jul 4 2005, 03:24 PM, said:

If revenge wasn't about the report, then what would it have been for?  It was Wilson himself that made the claim outing his wife was for revenge.

Unfortunately, Rove didn't send this country "into an abyss" all by himself.  He has had more than enough help from the people in this country who won't quit b*&tching, whining and pointing fingers instead of getting down to the business of solving problems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


You know what I was agreeing with you-you kept saying if it was for revenge then why didn't they just fire him or take her to a deskjob?  So were you baiting?  Just asking.

Always in history there is one catalystic figure that can be pointed to.  Sometimes the figure is a shadowy group but when you cast the light on that group you will find who was the strength.  

For example looking at the Russian Revolution.  At first it appeared to be a group of people banded together but as time went on Mr. Lenin emerged as the victor and as you study him you realize that all that time he was in that group he had his game strategy down.

And the way to spread the word that people like Rove is a part of that group that is destroying this country is by b*&tching, whining and pointing fingers is how you get down to the business of solving the problem.  Getting people like him out of the positions of power and thats through the vote.

And right now with the control that the Right Wing has on the media-this is the only way it can be done.  By word of mouth.

Tag it b*&tching, whining and pointing fingers if you wish.  In my opinion if it gets the job done of spreading the word then so be it.  In fact b*&tching, whining and pointing fingers is one of those tag lines that is used in arguments sort of like the Hitler strategy.  You know comparing someone to Hitler.

The American people are going to have to realize that the BS they are being fed is twisted and turned and manipulated only so that these power hungry people can stay in power.  It's not for the good of the country.  It's not for religious purposes.  It's not for freedom.  I just hope they don't realize it when it's too late.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#53 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 04 July 2005 - 11:31 AM

{{{{{Hibblette}}}}

Well, the Prez's approval ratings are down and faith in the Iraq debacle is down, too.  Perhaps some people are finally coming around.  Either that or they have buyer's remorse following the elections.

I agree with former Republican Congressman Pete McCloskey--Nixon was a prince compared to the Bush administration.
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#54 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 04 July 2005 - 12:12 PM

Quote

Eloisel: If so, he may be worried because Bush has made it quite clear he wants the "leakers" caught and brought to justice.

True, but he also said that he thought it would be hard to find out who the leakers were, which a number of people thought was a remarkable statement at the time, considering it's his administration and he's the POTUS. It's also hard to imagine that Bush is unaware that Rove, who has been close to him for many years, was not involved, but I guess anything's possible.



Quote

Eloisel: The President is juggling a lot of responsibilities - it is "a lot of hard work" you know! The President isn't running around investigating anything - that is what he has the CIA, FBI, and the rest of Washington for. He relies on those people to tell him the truth so he can make informed decisions in his job as leader of this nation.

And the CIA told the administration that the yellowcake claim was bogus back in November. Given that all of this occured when the President was allegedly deciding what course of action to take on Iraq, you'd think that bit of information would have been passed along to him, along with the bit about Saddam's aluminum tubes not being suitable for a centrifuge--a detail that I knew when Bush claimed in his speech before the AEI that the tubes were proof that Saddam was reconstituting nukes. Now, granted, I'm not as busy as the POTUS, but then war isn't my call, either.

There is a real problem, obviously, with the disconnect between what the Bush administration claimed we'd find in Iraq and what we found. Either Bush was misled by his own people or he knew that the picture he was presenting to us was skewed.  Considering that Tenet got a medal and others have received promotions and no one involved in funnelling information to him has been fired, it looks to me like Bush isn't too upset about that disconnect. In fact, it looks like he's bent over backwards to keep some people in the information conduit happy.

If I were Bush and people had neglected to present me with the caveats about intelligence that informed my decision to go to war, heads would roll. Instead, Bush has not fired a soul that I'm aware of.



Quote

Eloisel: I think he acts according to his beliefs. The State of the Union speech did not need those 16 words to bring anyone to the same conclusion that Bush had already reached concerning the danger of Iraq.

Oh, they helped. They helped to convince people that we faced a "grave and growing threat," that mushroom clouds might bloom over our cities. And, again, isn't it disturbing that Bush had reached a conclusion on the danger posed by Iraq on faulty information?  

Quote

Eloisel: And, he is no fool. What I would like to see before the end of his term is for him to bring the full brunt of his integrity down on top of what is happening in Washington and on top of the Religious Right that would use the Republican Party - or any other party they can get their hooks into - as a tool to further their own agenda at the expense of the nation as a whole. He doesn't have to worry about winning another election, his dad is out of the running and his brother Jeb has made his own bed with respect to being a viable candidate anytime soon. It wouldn't surprise me if Bush brought down the Republican Party on his way out if for no other reason than to purge it of the Religious Right.

It would stun me if Bush did that. I'd have more respect for him, but I'd be absolutely flabbergasted. Bush has actively courted the Religious Right since he was governor of Texas and worked especially hard to get them on board during 2004: calling for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, affirming his commitment to the "culture of life" with regard to abortion and stem cell research, and meeting with Dobson and other leaders of the Religious Right. In return, they turned out four million voters. Take them out of the equation, and Kerry would be President.

Do you think Bush didn't mean what he said, didn't act with integrity, in his overtures to the Religious Right during the campaign? If he turns his back on them, they'll surely not think much of his integrity.

Edited by Spectacles, 04 July 2005 - 12:14 PM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#55 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 04 July 2005 - 12:45 PM

Call Me Robin, on Jul 4 2005, 04:31 PM, said:

{{{{{Hibblette}}}}

Well, the Prez's approval ratings are down and faith in the Iraq debacle is down, too.  Perhaps some people are finally coming around.  Either that or they have buyer's remorse following the elections.

I agree with former Republican Congressman Pete McCloskey--Nixon was a prince compared to the Bush administration.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Back atcha {{{{{{Call Me Robin}}}}}}

I do believe the tide is turning...a few months late but yes.

The thing is after watching that docu on Rove I still say it's not the Democrats that are going to have to get it together but the Republicans are going to have to fight to get their party back.  That's what is going to have to happen, actually.

And that may be what is about to happen.  They are stabbing a lot of their own people in the back and that's not healthy-it really is risky in the political field.

I mean Wilson was appointed by ol' Man Bush, highly regarded by him.

So...what's the deal.  Eventually somebody survives the knife in the back and removes it and gives it back double fold.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#56 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 04 July 2005 - 03:35 PM

Here's something I found on what Rove told the FBI last fall:

http://www.prospect....as-m-03-08.html

Quote

President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, told the FBI in an interview last October that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists, according to a government official and an attorney familiar with the ongoing special counsel's investigation of the matter.

But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

If Cooper's emails show Rove circulating information about Plame before Novak's column, then it's possible Rove lied to the FBI. Of course, much depends on exactly what he told Cooper before Novak's column appeared and also on exactly how he worded his responses to the FBI.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#57 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,653 posts

Posted 04 July 2005 - 04:00 PM

It aslo depends on whether he was the one who told Novak in the first place, although I'm sure he was smart enough to delegate that task to someone else so as to have plausible deniability.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#58 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 04 July 2005 - 06:03 PM

Quote

Eloisel:  If revenge wasn't about the report, then what would it have been for?  It was Wilson himself that made the claim outing his wife was for revenge.

Hiblette:You know what I was agreeing with you-you kept saying if it was for revenge then why didn't they just fire him or take her to a deskjob?  So were you baiting?  Just asking.
In your earlier post, you wrote:  "Rove and them want us to believe it was revenge-takes away from the real reason-the fact that there were NO WMD'S."

It isn't Rove that is claiming revenge but Wilson.  Wilson claims it is about his 2002 report on Iraq attempting to purchase yellowcake from Niger being false.  There are many more claims of WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion that were not discredited until after the invasion and subsequent search.  Wilson's report in 2002 contradicted his 1999 report - which is not meant to disparage, just showing how things changed in the 2-3 years interval.

To clarify, I am not defending Rove or anyone else that may be involved in the Plame outing.  My position is that it was a stupid move by the person(s) who did for the reasons stated if that is in fact what happened -  kind of like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
  

Quote

Eloisel:  Unfortunately, Rove didn't send this country "into an abyss" all by himself.  He has had more than enough help from the people in this country who won't quit b*&tching, whining and pointing fingers instead of getting down to the business of solving problems.

Hiblette:  Always in history there is one catalystic figure that can be pointed to.  Sometimes the figure is a shadowy group but when you cast the light on that group you will find who was the strength. 

For example looking at the Russian Revolution.  At first it appeared to be a group of people banded together but as time went on Mr. Lenin emerged as the victor and as you study him you realize that all that time he was in that group he had his game strategy down.

And the way to spread the word that people like Rove is a part of that group that is destroying this country is by b*&tching, whining and pointing fingers is how you get down to the business of solving the problem.  Getting people like him out of the positions of power and thats through the vote.

And right now with the control that the Right Wing has on the media-this is the only way it can be done.  By word of mouth.

Tag it b*&tching, whining and pointing fingers if you wish.  In my opinion if it gets the job done of spreading the word then so be it.  In fact b*&tching, whining and pointing fingers is one of those tag lines that is used in arguments sort of like the Hitler strategy.  You know comparing someone to Hitler.

The American people are going to have to realize that the BS they are being fed is twisted and turned and manipulated only so that these power hungry people can stay in power.  It's not for the good of the country.  It's not for religious purposes.  It's not for freedom.  I just hope they don't realize it when it's too late.
To a point I agree with you.  However, at some point hurling insults and making stuff up is non-productive.  That is the current situation we are in.  A Democrat leader says something stupid, a Republican leader says something stupid, someone blames most American's not speaking more than one language on Bush's No Child Left Behind program, guards at Guantanomo desecrate a Koran and the installation is compared to a Gulag.  This over the top name calling is non-productive, creates more problems, and polarizes people.  We are more alike than we are different, yet we are putting ourselves into a position where we can't accomplish anything because we're standing around poking our fingers in each other's chest.

Just examine one issue - Gay Rights.  Democrats also opposed Gay Marriage but wished to do so by statute, as opposed to Republicans who wished to do so by Constitutional amendment.  However, both sides agree in Partnership Benefits (Social Security and health insurance benefits) and Civil Unions on the state level.  Yet, what is the focus of the name calling?  Republican Religious Right opposes all Gay Rights.  And, they do - but they are not the whole Republican Party, and instead of the Religious Right convincing Bush to deny Gay Rights of any kind, Bush supports Civil Unions with Partnership Benefits on the state level.  Which, oh my gawd, is what the Democrats want too.

What we're talking about is the term to label a civil union "marriage."  If I had a recipe for cake and I changed the ingredients to make it pudding, I wouldn't keep calling it cake.

#59 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 04 July 2005 - 06:41 PM

Quote

Eloisel: If so, he may be worried because Bush has made it quite clear he wants the "leakers" caught and brought to justice.

Spectacles:  True but he also said that he thought it would be hard to find out who the leakers were, which a number of people thought was a remarkable statement at the time, considering it's his administration and he's the POTUS. It's also hard to imagine that Bush is unaware that Rove, who has been close to him for many years, was not involved, but I guess anything's possible.
And it may be.  Deep Throat was just now discovered and that was after a confession.  So far as Rove's involvement, the extent of that is still to be proven.


Quote

Eloisel: The President is juggling a lot of responsibilities - it is "a lot of hard work" you know! The President isn't running around investigating anything - that is what he has the CIA, FBI, and the rest of Washington for. He relies on those people to tell him the truth so he can make informed decisions in his job as leader of this nation.

Spectacles:  And the CIA told the administration that the yellowcake claim was bogus back in November. Given that all of this occured when the President was allegedly deciding what course of action to take on Iraq, you'd think that bit of information would have been passed along to him, along with the bit about Saddam's aluminum tubes not being suitable for a centrifuge--a detail that I knew when Bush claimed in his speech before the AEI that the tubes were proof that Saddam was reconstituting nukes. Now, granted, I'm not as busy as the POTUS, but then war isn't my call, either.
There again you have the President relying on his advisors.  Considering someone wanted that claim in the Speech, I have to wonder why.  Yes, I know the belief is it was to bolster the WMDs in Iraq theory, however, if the information is easily proven false, it would serve more to weaken the cause than to further the agenda.

Quote

Spectacles: 
There is a real problem, obviously, with the disconnect between what the Bush administration claimed we'd find in Iraq and what we found. Either Bush was misled by his own people or he knew that the picture he was presenting to us was skewed.
Obviously.  However, I think there are other possiblities.  I think the WMDs - or at least the materials to make WMDs - were moved out of Iraq just prior to the invasion.  There has been some little proof to support that claim in the way of satellite images showing activity.  I know I've seen reports on biological and chemical warfare agents for sale in street markets around the middle east.  The US isn't the only country that should worry about that.


Quote

Eloisel: I think he acts according to his beliefs. The State of the Union speech did not need those 16 words to bring anyone to the same conclusion that Bush had already reached concerning the danger of Iraq.

Spectacles:  Oh, they helped. They helped to convince people that we faced a "grave and growing threat," that mushroom clouds might bloom over our cities. And, again, isn't it disturbing that Bush had reached a conclusion on the danger posed by Iraq on faulty information?
They may have helped but they weren't crucial to making the argument.  Again, if easily proven false, it doesn't serve the purpose.  And, yes, it is disturbing Bush reached the conclusion based on faulty information.  It is my understanding there is a huge shakeup in the CIA and FBI going on.  Tenet is in the same boat as Bush.

And, there is another little piece to that puzzle - the British dossier that also stated Iraq attempted to purchase yellowcake from Africa.

Quote

"In a letter to Donald Anderson, chairman of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Straw acknowledged that the CIA expressed reservations about the allegation.

"However, the U.S. comment was unsupported by explanation, and U.K. officials were confident that the dossier's statement was based on reliable intelligence which we had not shared with the U.S. (for good reasons, which I have given your committee in private session)," he wrote. "A judgment was therefore made to retain it."

Quote

Eloisel: And, he is no fool. What I would like to see before the end of his term is for him to bring the full brunt of his integrity down on top of what is happening in Washington and on top of the Religious Right that would use the Republican Party - or any other party they can get their hooks into - as a tool to further their own agenda at the expense of the nation as a whole. He doesn't have to worry about winning another election, his dad is out of the running and his brother Jeb has made his own bed with respect to being a viable candidate anytime soon. It wouldn't surprise me if Bush brought down the Republican Party on his way out if for no other reason than to purge it of the Religious Right.

Spectacles:  It would stun me if Bush did that. I'd have more respect for him, but I'd be absolutely flabbergasted. Bush has actively courted the Religious Right since he was governor of Texas and worked especially hard to get them on board during 2004: calling for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, affirming his commitment to the "culture of life" with regard to abortion and stem cell research, and meeting with Dobson and other leaders of the Religious Right. In return, they turned out four million voters. Take them out of the equation, and Kerry would be President.

Do you think Bush didn't mean what he said, didn't act with integrity, in his overtures to the Religious Right during the campaign? If he turns his back on them, they'll surely not think much of his integrity.

I don't think Bush so much courted the Religous Right as the Religious Right hooked on to him because they thought he would further their agenda.  Dobson complains quite regularly that Bush is not mandating according to plan.  Bush supports civl unions with partnership benefits on the state level - which is not the anti-Gay Rights the RR wants.  Bush appointed a person to the CDC who promotes safe sex - i.e. condomn usage, and does not stand with the RR on any other issue regarding sex, homosexual or otherwise.  Bush still comes down on the side of banning partial-birth abortion as opposed to banning abortion entirely, maintains Bill Clinton's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy for Gay's in the military, and Bush supports adult stem cell research - not embryonic.

Bush has met with many special interest groups besides just Dobson's.  Bush has also met with Gay Rights Activits groups, Senior Issues groups, and others.  All these groups are his constituency as President.  

So far as Bush's integrity - he has kept true to the person he is and to his core beliefs.  Whether or not I, or anyone else for that matter agrees with them, is beside the point.  A person doesn't lack integrity because they don't agree with someone else's POV but because they don't act consistent with their own.

What I think will be the litmus test for the Religious Right is Bush's SCOTUS appointee.  Considering the term is for life, I expect Bush to further his idealogy by appointing as young a candidate as possible and someone with a strict constitutional leaning, and preferably a minority male, female, or minority female.  While there may be no support of abortion, homosexuality, or stem cell research in the Constitution, I do not believe there is currently any clause that specifically prohibits abortion or homosexuality or even addresses stem cell research.  I will leave that part of the discussion to someone who is more studied on Constitutional Law than I am.

Edited by eloisel, 04 July 2005 - 07:05 PM.


#60 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 04 July 2005 - 07:08 PM

None of this is made up.

There are people out there (and they aren't all Democrats) accusing Rove of these improprieties.

My supposition is that Rove wants us to go with the Revenge aspect.  You see it takes away from the fact that she didn't find the WMD's and she was about to report this-which would realllllly drive home that they knew there were no WMD's.  Which would have been a lie told to the American people and members of Congress and then we the people stood behind the President and went to war.

And by the way suppositions can be made in cases such as this.  It's called analytical thinking and it's done by watching and listening to things around us.  It is how we can avoid being taken in by these power hungry soulless politicians that are in power at the moment.  And I mean every word of this.  Rove cares not one frig for the men and women who are over there in harms way.  All he cares about is winning in the political arena.

The revenge aspect just makes it look petty and sort of how most everyone excused Rove for that incident with the stationary.  In this report I watched they claimed that it was Rove who pulled this.  It was members of his OWN party that were accusing him of this.  Now to me there's a validity.  Perhaps to you, you wish to keep calling it hurling insults.  Mr. Rove loves for people to think like that.  Well you just keep adding to it... so we are just suppose to bend over and let Rove and his pals do what they are doing because we aren't suppose to fight back.

Sorry-but I'm sick of this.  I'm sick of the petty things being turned into humongous tax spending events for Rove to get political gain.  He did this in Texas.  I live in Texas have for sometime.  They send out emails about social security accusing Roosevelt of wanting to undermine his own creation.  And I have received these emails that I am talking about-you can believe me or not.  I really don't care because I realize there are some people that are never going to see what is happening.  They will blame it on those who are fighting back.

They will take the church (any church in this dialogue) and will use it for their own political gain.  That dadgum undemocratic/republic Sunday when all of these churches that have become crusaders for the Christian right all preached politics from the pulpit.  Tell THEM to stop the name calling.  Tell THEM to read the bible.  Lots of luck I've been doing that for some time now.

In regards to the gay marriage-there doesn't have be any dicking around with the definition.  It is the union of two people.  Even people in business will use the term-shucks even in playing cards the term is used.  The whole new definition is just another stupid smoke screen for something that is a civil issue and not a religious issue.

If you are a Christian then you are married under Gods eye not because the state did it.  When the state gets involved it is only a matter of civil regulations and legalities.  This is why divorce can be decreed by the state-it's not churches handing these divorces out.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Top News 2005, Valerie Plame, Karl Rove, Investigation

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users