Karl Rove possibly tried for perjury?

[BBond]

"If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would NO LONGER BE IN THIS ADMINISTRATION."

How do you spin that chicken?

Give up.

To quote another Republican shill: "Your boy is going to get rolled."

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, now we're qualifying it? Saying it was Wilson's wife and not specifically giving her name means it's perfectly a-ok to shop the info around to several reporters?


And you try to come off as not a Bush-God apologist?


Give me a break!

Right. Pointing out a quote makes me an apologist. :roll:

Stop being such an idiot.

As soon as you stop being a cherry-picking apologist.



BTW,

1. MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I?ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren?t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

2. MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that?s why I said that our policy continues to be that we?re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that?s why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation ? or questions related to it.

3. MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.
And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that?s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that?s why we?re continuing to follow that approach and that policy. Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

4. MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry?s question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be ? or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.
I think that?s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

5. MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don?t think you should read anything into it other than: We?re going to continue not to comment on it while it?s ongoing.

6. MCCLELLAN: I?m well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation?

7. MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

8. MCCLELLAN: Again, I?ve responded to the question.

9. MCCLELLAN: No, that?s not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I?m just not going to do that.

10. MCCLELLAN: Again, you?re continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I?m just not going to respond to them.

11. MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

12. MCCLELLAN: I?ve responded to the questions.

13. MCCLELLAN: I?ve responded to your questions.

14. MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

15. MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it?s ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

16. MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you?ve heard my response on this.

17. MCCLELLAN: You?re asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I?m simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

18. MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.

19. MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the president has previously spoken to this.

20. MCCLELLAN: No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And we?re just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.

21. MCCLELLAN: Again, you?re asking questions relating to an ongoing investigation, and I think I?ve responded to it.

22. MCCLELLAN: This is still coming at the same question relating to reports about an ongoing investigation. And I think I?ve responded to...

23. MCCLELLAN: Do you have questions on another topic?

24. MCCLELLAN: I appreciate the question. I think I?ve responded.

25. MCCLELLAN: Again, I?m going to be happy to talk about this at the appropriate time. You and everybody in this room ? or most people in this room, I should say ? know me very well, and they know the type of person that I am. And I?m confident in our relationship that we have. But I will be glad to talk about this at the appropriate time, and that?s once the investigation is complete. I?m not going to get into commenting based on reports or anything of that nature.

26. MCCLELLAN: You?ve heard my response.

27. MCCLELLAN: And I think those are questions best directed to the special prosecutor. Again, this is an ongoing matter. I?m just not going to get into commenting on it further at this time. At the appropriate time, when it?s complete, then I?ll be glad to talk about it at that point.

28. MCCLELLAN: It?s the same type of question. You?re asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation and I?m not going to do that.

29. MCCLELLAN: Understood. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that?s what he expects people in the White House to do.

30. MCCLELLAN: Again, I?ve already responded.

31. MCCLELLAN: You can direct those questions to the special prosecutors. I think probably more than one individual who?s involved in overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it?s ongoing. I think we all want to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. The president wants to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. And the way to help them do that is to not get into commenting on it while it is ongoing.

32. MCCLELLAN: I already responded to these questions.

33. MCCLELLAN: Again, I?m just not going to say anything further. I expressed all I?m going to say on this matter from this podium.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/11/briefing-711 /

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, now we're qualifying it? Saying it was Wilson's wife and not specifically giving her name means it's perfectly a-ok to shop the info around to several reporters?


And you try to come off as not a Bush-God apologist?


Give me a break!

Right. Pointing out a quote makes me an apologist. :roll:

Stop being such an idiot.

No, constantly spinning for the Bush administration makes you an apologist.

Stop being such an idiot.

 

[BBond]

The Bush White House put out the word that anyone leaking classified info would be fired. There is no legal point to be argued. This isn't a trial. They said that this White House wouldn't put up with such behavior and the person responsible would be fired.

What are they waiting for?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Here's the statement from Bush on Sept 30 concerning the Plame situation:

"If there?s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of."

Funny how the fruit loopers don't quote that one.

But you just did.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Here's the statement from Bush on Sept 30 concerning the Plame situation:

"If there?s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of."

Funny how the fruit loopers don't quote that one.

But you just did.

Can't you read chicken? Or aren't you clicking on the links?

I quoted it.

 

[BBond]

Ya' know, the chicken brings up a very good point (although I'm sure it was purely accidental).

Bush never says anything that can't be taken several ways and he always leaves himself an out. Always that little twist of words that give him and his apologists a way out.

But sooner or later that entire strategy backfires because at some point people realize that if Bush's statements are so loosely constructed that they can be twisted to mean anything, then there isn't a word out of the president's mouth that's worth taking the time to listen to.

You can't have it both ways forever before people begin to realize you can't be trusted either way.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond
Ya' know, the chicken brings up a very good point (although I'm sure it was purely accidental).

Bush never says anything that can't be taken several ways and he always leaves himself an out. Always that little twist of words that give him and his apologists a way out.

But sooner or later that entire strategy backfires because at some point people realize that if Bush's statements are so loosely constructed that they can be twisted to mean anything, then there isn't a word out of the president's mouth that's worth taking the time to listen to.

You can't have it both ways forever before people begin to realize you can't be trusted either way.

All politicians do this, not just Bush.

And if they do get stuck they can always tell you what the meaning of is is.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Since there are those that don't believe me, maybe they'll believe coming from the "paper of record"? From an article today in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/polit...1278820800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

The 1982 law that makes it a crime to disclose the identities of covert operatives is not easy to break. It has apparently been the basis of a single prosecution, against Sharon M. Scranage, a C.I.A. clerk in Ghana who pleaded guilty in 1985 to identifying two C.I.A. agents to a boyfriend.

A prosecutor seeking to establish a violation of the law has to establish an intentional disclosure by someone with authorized access to classified information. That person must know that the disclosure identifies a covert agent "and that the United States was taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." A covert agent is defined as someone whose identity is classified and who has served outside the United States within the last five years.

"We made it exceedingly difficult to violate," Victoria Toensing, who was chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee when the law was enacted, said of the law.

The e-mail message from Mr. Cooper to his bureau chief describing a brief conversation with Mr. Rove, first reported in Newsweek, does not by itself establish that Mr. Rove knew Ms. Wilson's covert status or that the government was taking measures to protect her.

Based on the e-mail message, Mr. Rove's disclosures are not criminal, said Bruce S. Sanford, a Washington lawyer who helped write the law and submitted a brief on behalf of several news organizations concerning it to the appeals court hearing the case of Mr. Cooper and Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times. Ms. Miller has gone to jail rather than disclose her source.

"It is clear that Karl Rove's conversation with Matt Cooper does not fall into that category" of criminal conduct, Mr. Sanford said. "That's not 'knowing.' It doesn't even come close."

There has been some dispute, moreover, about just how secret a secret agent Ms. Wilson was.

"She had a desk job in Langley," said Ms. Toensing, who also signed the supporting brief in the appeals court, referring to the C.I.A.'s headquarters. "When you want someone in deep cover, they don't go back and forth to Langley."

So who is Miller protecting anyway? It wouldn't make any sense if it was Rove.

And apparently Plame was a double super secret desk jockey.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
Ya' know, the chicken brings up a very good point (although I'm sure it was purely accidental).

Bush never says anything that can't be taken several ways and he always leaves himself an out. Always that little twist of words that give him and his apologists a way out.

But sooner or later that entire strategy backfires because at some point people realize that if Bush's statements are so loosely constructed that they can be twisted to mean anything, then there isn't a word out of the president's mouth that's worth taking the time to listen to.

You can't have it both ways forever before people begin to realize you can't be trusted either way.

All politicians do this, not just Bush.

And if they do get stuck they can always tell you what the meaning of is is.

They all do it but the stakes are never the same because the agenda is never the same.

Personal sex-lives that arouse your prurient interests are in no way comparable to what Rove has done. This isn't lying to conceal personal sexual behavior. This is lying to an investigation to conceal the truth about a possible conspiracy to commit treason.

It is clear to everyone on planet Earth other than American Republicans that Bush attacked a country that had no means or intent to be or soon become a threat to the USA. Joe Wilson, as well as many other people in and out of government, called the Bush administration on it and Karl Rove, in his typical fashion, used any means at his disposal, legal or illegal, to exact revenge.

This is the problem. Karl Rove's politics have degraded the political atmosphere in America to the point of civil war. He's pitted an almost fifty-fifty political split into a narrow majority that is exaggerated by a lackey corporate press, taxpayer funded propaganda, and dubious shills planted in the White House press corps -- and it's anyone's guess where else. Well, Rove will learn an immutable law of politics now.

The people will put up with almost anything.

When it starts to look so ridiculous that even our *free* press finds the courage to finally become what it should have been all along, you've got problems Karl. I mean, other than the chicken, most Americans can look at this situation at face value and clearly and unmistakably recognize what they see regardless of the parsed phrases or recently implemented outright silence.

Suddenly Scotty-boy McClellan isn't talking about an ongoing investigation anymore. They're just ducking and covering and hoping this will go away. Stick to the talking point. We won't discuss it. Well, the investigation is going to end. The only way you'll be able to remain silent then is to plead the Fifth Ammendment.

Karl is going to learn another immutable rule of politics. What goes around comes around. And there are so many people in both parties who've been waiting patiently for this to come around.

This is going to be the best TV in ages. I just might start watching TV news again.

Feeding frenzy!
:thumbsup:

 

[Jhhnn]

From TLC-

"And apparently Plame was a double super secret desk jockey."

Your comment is extremely apologetic of the Admin, bordering on the inane- she was a field agent in the past, and her sources and contacts likely still active and useful. Her status was also deemed of enough sensitivity to warrant a cover employer, Brewster-Jennings Associates, which is now not a cover for her or others whose true occupations were concealed under that entity... Intelligence networks and sources are established over time, sometimes a very long time, often requiring the identities of the operatives to be concealed indefinitely... even when they've actually retired...

Whatever can-o-worms Rove et al opened for the CIA will never really be known, but they must consider it to be a serious problem, given that this investigation was undertaken at their request....

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From TLC-

"And apparently Plame was a double super secret desk jockey."

Your comment is extremely apologetic of the Admin, bordering on the inane- she was a field agent in the past, and her sources and contacts likely still active and useful. Her status was also deemed of enough sensitivity to warrant a cover employer, Brewster-Jennings Associates, which is now not a cover for her or others whose true occupations were concealed under that entity... Intelligence networks and sources are established over time, sometimes a very long time, often requiring the identities of the operatives to be concealed indefinitely... even when they've actually retired...

Whatever can-o-worms Rove et al opened for the CIA will never really be known, but they must consider it to be a serious problem, given that this investigation was undertaken at their request....

You still don't seem to get it. We don't know if it was Rove that actually opened that can-o-worms.

As far as Plame's cover, it's been noted that true undercover CIA operatives usually have a cover within an actual company, not a front company. Andrea Mitchell admitted that she knew about Plame being in the CIA before Novak's story ever came out and so did other reporters. It was not any big secret around Washington, so the CIA was sure doing a crappy job hiding her super double secret agent status.

 

[montanafan]

A little background on Victoria Toensing and her husband.

Toensing Fails to Disclose Friendship with Novak

Mouthpieces.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond
It is clear to everyone on planet Earth other than American Republicans that Bush attacked a country that had no means or intent to be or soon become a threat to the USA. Joe Wilson, as well as many other people in and out of government, called the Bush administration on it and Karl Rove, in his typical fashion, used any means at his disposal, legal or illegal, to exact revenge.

Wilson was a partisan hack that lied to try to slime Bush. The only people who don't recognize that are the members of the fruit loop left who seemingly exist on some other planet than Earth.

Here's a refresher for the fruit loop crew:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.

Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer.

Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name.

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.

Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.

The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has "not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa."

But the fruit loop left will keep trying to cast Wilson as some bastion of truth and the American way, regardless of the facts. :roll:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From TLC-

"And apparently Plame was a double super secret desk jockey."

Your comment is extremely apologetic of the Admin, bordering on the inane- she was a field agent in the past, and her sources and contacts likely still active and useful. Her status was also deemed of enough sensitivity to warrant a cover employer, Brewster-Jennings Associates, which is now not a cover for her or others whose true occupations were concealed under that entity... Intelligence networks and sources are established over time, sometimes a very long time, often requiring the identities of the operatives to be concealed indefinitely... even when they've actually retired...

Whatever can-o-worms Rove et al opened for the CIA will never really be known, but they must consider it to be a serious problem, given that this investigation was undertaken at their request....

Also, IIRC, the law TLC's discussing does not require that the agent be covert currently, but at any time in the last five years. I also suspect there are other statutes or regulations Rove might have violated even if he didn't technically violate TLC's. We probably won't know for sure until the special prosecutor brings the investigation public.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You still don't seem to get it. We don't know if it was Rove that actually opened that can-o-worms.

As far as Plame's cover, it's been noted that true undercover CIA operatives usually have a cover within an actual company, not a front company. Andrea Miller admitted that she knew about Plame being in the CIA before Novak's story ever came out and so did other reporters. It was not any big secret around Washington, so the CIA was sure doing a crappy job hiding her super double secret agent status.

Interesting claims. I've heard it frequently from BushCo faithful, but I've never seen credible evidence supporting it. Happen to have a link?

 

[Phokus]

I don't think i've seen a partisan shill defend anyone with as much effort as TasteLikeChicken.

I see the cognitive dissonance has kicked in to hyperdrive.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
It is clear to everyone on planet Earth other than American Republicans that Bush attacked a country that had no means or intent to be or soon become a threat to the USA. Joe Wilson, as well as many other people in and out of government, called the Bush administration on it and Karl Rove, in his typical fashion, used any means at his disposal, legal or illegal, to exact revenge.

Wilson was a partisan hack that lied to try to slime Bush. The only people who don't recognize that are the members of the fruit loop left who seemingly exist on some other planet than Earth.

Here's a refresher for the fruit loop crew:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

blah blah blah blah

Look at TLC try to divert from the topic. Doesn't matter the purpose of Wilson's trip nor what he found there. What matters is that a leak was made and Rove is a suspect.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You still don't seem to get it. We don't know if it was Rove that actually opened that can-o-worms.

As far as Plame's cover, it's been noted that true undercover CIA operatives usually have a cover within an actual company, not a front company. Andrea Miller admitted that she knew about Plame being in the CIA before Novak's story ever came out and so did other reporters. It was not any big secret around Washington, so the CIA was sure doing a crappy job hiding her super double secret agent status.

Interesting claims. I've heard it frequently from BushCo faithful, but I've never seen credible evidence supporting it. Happen to have a link?

Andrea Mitchell made her remark on TV so I can't provide a link ot that. Clifford May made the same sort of remark in an article on NRO a while back.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
It is clear to everyone on planet Earth other than American Republicans that Bush attacked a country that had no means or intent to be or soon become a threat to the USA. Joe Wilson, as well as many other people in and out of government, called the Bush administration on it and Karl Rove, in his typical fashion, used any means at his disposal, legal or illegal, to exact revenge.

Wilson was a partisan hack that lied to try to slime Bush. The only people who don't recognize that are the members of the fruit loop left who seemingly exist on some other planet than Earth.

Here's a refresher for the fruit loop crew:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

blah blah blah blah

Look at TLC try to divert from the topic. Doesn't matter the purpose of Wilson's trip nor what he found there. What matters is that a leak was made and Rove is a suspect.

It goes to show Wilson's motivations as well as the fact that he's a liar.

It's not my fault you squirm at him being exposed as the lying POS he is.

 

[conjur]

He's not a liar. No way, no how.


On Rove's Behalf, the White House Issued Denials, Which Have Now Fallen Apart
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBRWILR1BE.html


There are your liars!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You still don't seem to get it. We don't know if it was Rove that actually opened that can-o-worms.

As far as Plame's cover, it's been noted that true undercover CIA operatives usually have a cover within an actual company, not a front company. Andrea Miller admitted that she knew about Plame being in the CIA before Novak's story ever came out and so did other reporters. It was not any big secret around Washington, so the CIA was sure doing a crappy job hiding her super double secret agent status.

Interesting claims. I've heard it frequently from BushCo faithful, but I've never seen credible evidence supporting it. Happen to have a link?

Andrea Mitchell made her remark on TV so I can't provide a link ot that. Clifford May made the same sort of remark in an article on NRO a while back.

Mrs. Alan Greenspan? Give us a break.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Phokus
I don't think i've seen a partisan shill defend anyone with as much effort as TasteLikeChicken.

I see the cognitive dissonance has kicked in to hyperdrive.

Citing facts is defending Rove?

I'm not defending Rove. I'm debunking all the BS and half-truths being spread around by the fruit loops.

If Rove is guilty of anything then he deserves whatever he gets. It appears he's not actually guilty of anything though so their little happy dance isn't even set to music.

Also, I wonder if Wilson himself was cleared to know his wife a CIA operative? I doubt it. So who told him? His wife? Did she out herself illegally? I bet the loopers don't give a flip about looking into that outing.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur
He's not a liar. No way, no how.

/watches conjur paddle furiously down the river of denial.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Phokus
I don't think i've seen a partisan shill defend anyone with as much effort as TasteLikeChicken.

I see the cognitive dissonance has kicked in to hyperdrive.

Citing facts is defending Rove?

I'm not defending Rove. I'm debunking all the BS and half-truths being spread around by the fruit loops.

If Rove is guilty of anything then he deserves whatever he gets. It appears he's not actually guilty of anything though so their little happy dance isn't even set to music.

Also, I wonder if Wilson himself was cleared to know his wife a CIA operative? I doubt it. So who told him? His wife? Did she out herself illegally? I bet the loopers don't give a flip about looking into that outing.

if there is any doubt in your mind that something is up - there should be no doubt. (thanks robert deNiro)

the coincidence is too much - something sketchy is going on. hopefully the truth eventually comes out but i'm certainly not holding my breath.