Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[ ... ]
So you keep claiming, still waiting for links. I searched for your claims re. Andrea Mitchell. The only links I could find were from the loony right-wing blogs.
... Of course right-wing links are the only place you're going to find it. The lefty fruit looper blogs would ignore anything that might destroy their blindered worldview.
And, of course, you can't link to a TV show. But I've already told you that once. Maybe you missed it previously since it seems to be one of your delusional "Chicken is running again" remarks.
And TV shows often have transcripts, or are quoted in other media. Maybe you missed this obvious possibility because you were too busy bottom feeding on Free Republic, looking for more lies to parrot.
Ever find those links, Sir Chicken? Did your freeper friends betray you?
Ever find those links to prove Wilson didn't pass along classified infomation, like you claimed? Or did your DU terrorist friends betray you?
Run finger, run.
Be reasonable. You obviously missed my posts. Rather than fix the link in my original which was so many pages back, simply check this out. Find out what the "mainstream" media (36 of them) hold to be true when they can be held accountable. Read what the law says on this issue. If that is too much reading check my posts. You can start with
Anandtech Forums
Amici Brief 32305.
If the document is moved again search the entire site for Amici Brief 32305. The first entry was
- Baker & Hostetler LLP | Media Law
3/23/2005 Amici Brief in Confidential Sources Case on Behalf of 36 Media Organizations
Click on that link and then click on the labeled.
- "3/23/2005 Amici Brief in Confidential Sources Case on Behalf of 36 Media Organizations"
I've already read the brief. I was one of the first ones in this thread to post the article citing and linking to the brief.
you deserve a medal.
::yawn::
It demonstrates quite clearly how the 'non-liberal' media is talking out both sides of its mouth on this issue. They claim there's nothing there and no laws were broken, but don't forget, Rove is guilty.
The media never said he's guilty. Nice strawman though.
There are quite a few media outlets, like the NY Times, that seem to be working overtime to imply it.
Now the lefties are jumping up and down about information being leaked from a classified memo that claims a paragraph with Plames name was marked secret, even though the article specifically states:
"Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said."
Was it marked secret because it contained Plame's name, or because there was other secret infromation in that paragraph? No matter,
Exactly, it doesn't matter. Everything in the paragraph - Plame's identity, any other information, was secret.
Yet it was leaked, again, for someone to write this article. Where's your outrage? Or is your outrage over leaks only limited to when someone you despise does it?
they bull right on ahead and make more jumps to conclusion.
that makes no sense.
To you and those who refuse to make sense of it, probably not. I bet others can make perfect sense of it though. We've watched the left constantly shift the goalposts on their claims from traitor, to Rove is guilty of releasing classified information, to 'Well, even if he isn't guilty he should still be fired because he's morally wrong.' Every time new infromation comes out thast demonstrates that Rove probably won't be frog marched anywhere, they jump to a brand new conclusion.
Also, we know Plame's name was still kept secret by the CIA, at least half-heartedly after they screwed up themselves and divulged her identity, but that fact still doesn't necessarily qualify her as a covert agent under the law.
Right, blame the CIA now. Her secret status - as determined by the CIA, not the criminal law you refer to - was blown by a administration official according to Novak.
Right. It's
me blaming the CIA now. :roll:
Have you forgotten about the amici brief already?
Nor does it prove that Rove knew Plame was covert either.
Of course not. Each individual piece of evidence might not prove it, but together, a prosecutor can weave a story. The key piece that hasn't been leaked to the press yet is if the prosecutor has hard evidence that Rove or Libby saw this State Department memo.
But this memo is still an important piece of evidence.
It hasn't been leaked yet whether the prosecutor has hard evidence that Rove or Libby didn't see the memo either. Works both ways.
But one seemingly can't get those kind of facts through to those taking a header off the conclusions mat.
Sad, isn't it?
The sad part is that you attack every piece of evidence on its own, and refuse to look at the larger picture.
Overall the larger picture thus far indicates Rove is likely in the clear. I'm not refusing to look at the larger picture - which imo, includes Wilson's antics as well - I'm debating every time the lefties drag out a new talking point or regurgitate an old one. It's the left who are looking at this frame-by-frame and are absolutely refusing to acknowledge the overall here, not me. They bring up a talking point, get all giddy, find out it's useless, and move onto a new one. Their talking point today is the WahPost article by Pincus, which means squat because it quotes anonymous sources and anonymous sources - left, center, and right - have been missing wildly throughout this debacle.
Facebook
Twitter