PDA

View Full Version : Rove to be indicted within 2 weeks...


Pages : 1 [2] 3

jAZ
06-15-2006, 12:01 AM
Have you ever been on a jury?

It seems it would be impossible for the prosecution to get a verdict if you were...

I'd be bummed to be a prosecutor and have you on my jury..

I'm not asking you to agree with me that they were 100% fake for sure (which I believe after looking at all the evidence)

I'm just asking which way you would lean if you had to make a decision..
Let me ask you a similar judgement question...

Do you think Rove lied to the Grand Jury?

go bowe
06-15-2006, 12:07 AM
did you know the blpd is a type of disease related to leukemia and lymphomas?

Joe Seahawk
06-15-2006, 12:25 AM
Let me ask you a similar judgement question...

Do you think Rove lied to the Grand Jury?

Although I'm not well studied on the case or his testimony I would say it's more likely than not that he lied at some point..

If you said the docs are fake but Bush probably shirked his duties in the NG I could understand your opinion. (and who knows, maybe you're right)

But to look at the Rather docs and call it 50/50 is pretty batshit crazy IMO.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 12:40 AM
Although I'm not well studied on the case or his testimony I would say it's more likely than not that he lied at some point...
By "at some point" are you refering to his testimoy before the grand jury... or just at some point (ie, when talking to his friends/co-workers)? I was asking about his testimony under oath... just to be clear.
If you said the docs are fake but Bush probably shirked his duties in the NG I could understand your opinion. (and who knows, maybe you're right)
I've said repeatedly that it's possible that they are fake... and it's likely that he shirked his duties. But...
But to look at the Rather docs and call it 50/50 is pretty batshit crazy IMO.
... I have to disagree with you that it's "batshit crazy" to call it 50/50. There is nothing approaching "overwhelming" evidence that they are fake. There is just enough to raise doubt... which is all that was needed to 1) obfuscate the issue in the media and 2) call out Rather/CBS for questionable reporting judgement.

But that's far from "batshit crazy" land.

SBK
06-15-2006, 12:42 AM
... I have to disagree with you that it's "batshit crazy" to call it 50/50. There is nothing approaching "overwhelming" evidence that they are fake. There is just enough to raise doubt... which is all that was needed to 1) obfuscate the issue in the media and 2) call out Rather/CBS for questionable reporting judgement.

But that's far from "batshit crazy" land.

ROFL

Paul McCartney's wife has more of a leg to stand on that you do with this one.....

ROFL

Joe Seahawk
06-15-2006, 12:56 AM
I've said repeatedly that it's possible that they are fake... and it's likely that he shirked his duties. But...



It's possible the docs are faked, yet it's likely he shirked his duties?

Do you have some evidence?

You see this is exactly why i need to swallow a huge chunk of rock salt while reading your takes.

You seem to be a smart guy yet the partisan way in which you weigh evidence makes me discredit almost all your posts.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 12:57 AM
ROFL

Paul McCartney's wife has more of a leg to stand on that you do with this one.....

ROFL
Remind me when the Bush Administration theselves bothered to call the documents fake. When was that again?

Joe Seahawk
06-15-2006, 12:59 AM
Remind me when the Bush Administration theselves bothered to call the documents fake. When was that again?

Suddenly Jaz would believe the Bush administration..

jAZ
06-15-2006, 01:03 AM
Suddenly Jaz would believe the Bush administration..
What's to believe? They refuse to deny they are authetic? They also released an official docuement that had all of the same characteristics as the supposedly "fake" document, but was known to be authentic and was composed a year prior to the CBS docs.

But that doesn't matter... right?

BTW... did you miss my last post directed to you?

jAZ
06-15-2006, 01:05 AM
It's possible the docs are faked, yet it's likely he shirked his duties?

Do you have some evidence?

You see this is exactly why i need to swallow a huge chunk of rock salt while reading your takes.

You seem to be a smart guy yet the partisan way in which you weigh evidence makes me discredit almost all your posts.
You seem to have filtered out all the other evidence that suggests the docs are authentic, and have hung your hat on a cute little gif that demonstrates nothing.

Doing so would obviously lead someone to think that doubting they are fake is "batshit crazy". But that doesn't make me the one applying partisan weight to evidence.

Joe Seahawk
06-15-2006, 01:07 AM
What's to believe? They refuse to deny they are authetic? They also released an official docuement that had all of the same characteristics as the supposedly "fake" document, but was known to be authentic and was composed a year prior to the CBS docs.

But that doesn't matter... right?

BTW... did you miss my last post directed to you?

Oh, so they should have said the docs are fake and not let CBS twist in the wind?

I think they played it perfectly.. If a major network news orginization wants to hang itself on obviously fake documents...let em.. they deserve it..

Joe Seahawk
06-15-2006, 01:11 AM
You seem to have filtered out all the other evidence that suggests the docs are authentic, and have hung your hat on a cute little gif that demonstrates nothing.

Doing so would obviously lead someone to think that doubting they are fake is "batshit crazy". But that doesn't make me the one applying partisan weight to evidence.


The cute little gif demonstrates that a 1973 typewriter just happens to match Microsoft word in the default times new roman format..perfectly


Try it yourself..


I still cannot believe you won't admit the CBS docs were obviously a weak attempt at forgery..:shake:

Joe Seahawk
06-15-2006, 01:12 AM
You seem to have filtered out all the other evidence that suggests the docs are authentic.

Oh, please share..

jAZ
06-15-2006, 01:23 AM
Oh, so they should have said the docs are fake and not let CBS twist in the wind?

I think they played it perfectly.. If a major network news orginization wants to hang itself on obviously fake documents...let em.. they deserve it..
That's not the issue. They never came out to deny the documents, ever... not immediately when CBS was strongest... not during the time you describe as CBS twisting in the wind... not after the fact to clear Bush's name.

They did however withhold a document for quite a while (Bush's 1971 promotion) that helped substantiate that typewriters in 1971 could produce the very characteristics that detractors claim prove the 1972 docs must be fake.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 01:24 AM
I still cannot believe you won't admit the CBS docs were obviously a weak attempt at forgery..:shake:
I admit it's possible. Always have.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 01:26 AM
Oh, please share..
I should be clear that I'm not trying to overstate the certainty of authenticity by saying "are". Don't take that as an unqualified assertion that I believe they are authentic.

Just to be clear. Wouldn't want Donger to intentionally get the wrong idea. He's got a habit of that.

Joe Seahawk
06-15-2006, 01:28 AM
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 15, 2004
Q Scott, on the National Guard documents on "60 Minutes," the First Lady says she believes these are forgeries. The RNC has accused the Democratic Party of being the source of these documents. Knowing then what you know now, would you still have released those documents when you did?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's a hypothetical question, John. We received those documents from a major news organization. We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time. And in keeping with the spirit of releasing documents and being open about all the documents that we have, we made those documents available to everybody else so you could look at them yourselves. Since that time there have been a number of questions that have been raised about these documents and their authenticity. There continue to be questions raised. Those are serious issues; they ought to be looked into fully.

The one thing that is not under question is the timing of these orchestrated attacks by the Democrats on the President's service. These are old, recycled attacks, and the Democrats have made it clear that they intend to try to tear down the President and throw the kitchen sink at us because they can't run on John Kerry's record, and because they see him falling behind in the polls. And that's what this is about.

Q Does the President agree with the First Lady that these are forgeries? And does he agree with the Republican Party in that the Democrats are the source of the forgeries?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Mrs. Bush was expressing her view. The view of the White House is that these are serious questions that have been raised and they ought to be looked into. Many media organizations are looking into them as we speak. They're interviewing additional experts. They have raised additional questions about it, and those are serious questions that ought to be looked into fully.

Q Should Congress look into them? Because Christopher Cox has called for a congressional investigation of these documents. Does the White House agree that a congressional --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's an action that Congress has taken. Again, we think that they ought to be fully looked into, and many news organizations are looking into them. They're talking to experts. There are many experts that are raising questions about these documents. And many of those media organizations have continued to raise questions about those documents.

Q Does the White House believe that taxpayers' money should be spent looking into those documents?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, that's a decision that you should address -- a question that you should address to Congress. That's a decision that the Congress made.

Q You don't care how the taxpayers' money is spent?

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, these are serious questions. They ought to be looked into fully, and most news organizations are taking a look at those

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040915-3.htmle questions.

Joe Seahawk
06-15-2006, 01:36 AM
I'm Crashing.. Thanks for the entertainment tonight Jaz.. :)

SBK
06-15-2006, 01:43 AM
Remind me when the Bush Administration theselves bothered to call the documents fake. When was that again?

Why would he waste his time calling something that is obviously fake a fake? That's retarded.

A President takes time to deny a rumor when he's left a load of jiz as evidence, not when some 2 cent reporter makes up a story about him.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 01:53 AM
Oh, please share..
I've put it out there already...

1) BushCo refuses to say they are fake
2) BushCo initially withheld (and eventually released after the fact) an authenticated document disproving many of the claims being used to label the docs as fake.

This thread covers just about all the specific rebuttals including a very detailed shredding of your little gif, which I will highlight for you...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

First Claim (LittleGreenFootballs): "The documents can be recreated in Microsoft Word".

What the LGFer did to "prove" this was to type a Microsoft Word document in Times New Roman font, and overlay it with the original document. As he says:

Notice that the date lines up perfectly, all the line breaks are in the same places, all letters line up with the same letters above and below, and the kerning is exactly the same. And I did not change a single thing from Word's defaults; margins, type size, tab stops, etc. are all using the default settings.

We're going to make this simple.

First, of course, in order to do this, he first had to reduce the document so that the margins were the same, since the original PDF distributed by CBS is quite a bit larger. Then he superimposed the two documents, such that the margins on all sides lined up.

What he then discovered is that Times New Roman typeface is, when viewed on a computer monitor, really, really similar to Times New Roman typeface. Or rather, really really similar to a typeface that is similar to Times New Roman typeface.

Um, OK then.

You see, a "typeface" doesn't just consist of the shape of the letters. It also is a set of rules about the size of the letters in different point sizes, the width of those letters, and the spacing between them. These are all designed in as part of the font, by the designer. Since Microsoft Word was designed to include popular and very-long-used typefaces, it is hardly a surprise that those typefaces, in Microsoft Word, would look similar to, er, themselves, on a typewriter or other publishing device. That's the point of typefaces; to have a uniform look across all publishing devices. To look the same. You could use the same typeface in, for example, OpenOffice, and if it's the same font, surprise-surprise, it will look the same.

So kudos on discovering fonts, freeper guy.

Next, however: do they really match up? Well, no. They don't.

If you shrink each document to be approximately 400-500 pixels across, they do indeed look strikingly similar. But that is because you are compressing the information they contain to 400-500 pixels across. At that size, subtle differences in typeface or letter placement simply cannot be detected; the "pixels" are too big. If you compare the two documents at a larger size, the differences between them are much more striking.

For instance: In the original CBS document, some letters "float" above or below the baseline. For example, in the original document, lowercase 'e' is very frequently -- but not always -- above the baseline. Look at the word "interference", or even "me". Typewriters do this; computers don't. Granted, if you are comparing a lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high with another lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high, you're not going to see such subtleties. That doesn't prove the differences aren't there; it just proves you're an idiot, for making them each 12 pixels high and then saying "see, they almost match!"

I'll let you read the rest... There is WAAAAY too much to copy/paste here. But needless to say, there is plenty of detailed contrary evidence to suggest that many of the critiques causing people to claim them certain forgeries are bunk.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 01:55 AM
(scotty's PC)
Are you just trying to prove me right?

jAZ
06-15-2006, 01:57 AM
Why would he waste his time calling something that is obviously fake a fake? That's retarded.

A President takes time to deny a rumor when he's left a load of jiz as evidence, not when some 2 cent reporter makes up a story about him.
The grownups are talking. Here's something to keep you occupied...

http://www.dancinghorses.com/Fractals/Jewels.jpg

patteeu
06-15-2006, 06:48 AM
50/50 ROFL

Donger
06-15-2006, 08:00 AM
Okay. Who's the retard that brought up the forged Bush AWOL letter?

mlyonsd
06-15-2006, 08:32 AM
Okay. Who's the retard that brought up the forged Bush AWOL letter?

Stop it. Whether or not Bush went AWOL and what happened to Ameila Earhart are the two biggest questions we face today.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 08:34 AM
The grownups are talking. Here's something to keep you occupied...

http://www.dancinghorses.com/Fractals/Jewels.jpg


Ummmm...diamonds...that reminds me of diamonds!
I love diamonds! They're my best friend.

Velvet_Jones
06-15-2006, 09:18 AM
I won't admit I'm wrong if I'm not wrong.
Ok then let’s compromise. Admit you are a liar and we will call it even.

Velvet_Jones
06-15-2006, 09:22 AM
It's possible the docs are faked, yet it's likely he shirked his duties?

Do you have some evidence?

You see this is exactly why i need to swallow a huge chunk of rock salt while reading your takes.

You seem to be a smart guy yet the partisan way in which you weigh evidence makes me discredit almost all your posts.
jIZ told me the other day that he has never implied “Its not the evidence but the seriousness of the charge that matters”. So it can’t be that. Must be something else.

Velvet_Jones
06-15-2006, 09:28 AM
That's not the issue. They never came out to deny the documents, ever... not immediately when CBS was strongest... not during the time you describe as CBS twisting in the wind... not after the fact to clear Bush's name.

They did however withhold a document for quite a while (Bush's 1971 promotion) that helped substantiate that typewriters in 1971 could produce the very characteristics that detractors claim prove the 1972 docs must be fake.
Here is the issue. Why should they do that? Are you so pig headed that you think the POTUS has to answer to made up accusations? It’s the same issue that you ‘tards have been asking him to admit that he made a mistake here or there. He knows if he does that you and your ilk will hit him on the head with it.

Just to show that I mean you know ill will, I just promoted your Mama to assistant crack ho.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 10:48 AM
Here is the issue. Why should they do that? Are you so pig headed that you think the POTUS has to answer to made up accusations? It’s the same issue that you ‘tards have been asking him to admit that he made a mistake here or there. He knows if he does that you and your ilk will hit him on the head with it.
ROFL

When exactly was it established that this was 'made up' again? I mean... outside of your own heart.

Cochise
06-15-2006, 10:53 AM
Clinton never denied raping that one woman or punching that other one. Hillary never denied turning Vince Foster's head into a canoe. Guess those charges must have been true.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 10:58 AM
Clinton never denied raping that one woman or punching that other one. Hillary never denied turning Vince Foster's head into a canoe. Guess those charges must have been true.
If you have any physical or other evidence supporting those claims you'd have an argument here. I don't think you do.

Brock
06-15-2006, 11:01 AM
Clinton never denied raping that one woman or punching that other one. Hillary never denied turning Vince Foster's head into a canoe. Guess those charges must have been true.

Allegedly true.

go bowe
06-15-2006, 12:47 PM
Stop it. Whether or not Bush went AWOL and what happened to Ameila Earhart are the two biggest questions we face today.amelia earhart?

eh, not so much...

i was thinking why did they take coke out of coke?

jAZ
06-19-2006, 11:26 PM
For those who have been following the TruthOut angle to this story... this is somewhat interesting. They are the lone outlet having reported that Rove was actually indicted on May 12th. Despite Luskin's recent claims, they are still maintaining that their reporting at the time is factually accurate.

These known facts remain:
1) Luskin continues to refuse to release the document supposedly saying that Rove won't be indicted
2) Fitzgerald's office won't confirm the reports by Luskin

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/6/19/185947/499

Returning to "06 cr 128"

By Marc Ash,

Mon Jun 19th, 2006 at 06:59:47 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation

What will follow will be a rather frank discussion of our reporting of and involvement in the Rove indictment matter. If you like simple answers or quick resolutions, turn back now. This is our report to our readership. Our primary sources for this report are career federal law enforcement and federal government officials speaking on condition of anonymity. This report was developed under the supervision of all of Truthout's senior editors, which should be taken as an indication that we view this matter with the utmost seriousness.

For the record, we did reach Kimberly Nerheim, a spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald, and asked her these questions: Did a grand jury return an indictment of Karl Rove? Did Patrick Fitzgerald send a fax to Robert Luskin similar to that described in recent press reports? Is Patrick Fitzgerald's probe of the Plame matter still ongoing? Her response to each question was identical: "I have no comment."

The Rove indictment story is way beyond - in terms of complexity - any other story we have ever covered. In essence, we found out something we were not supposed to find out, and things exploded from there. We were not prepared for the backlash.

On Tuesday, June 13, when the mainstream media broke their stories that Karl Rove had been exonerated, there were frank discussions amongst our senior editors about retracting our stories outright. The problem we wrestled with was what exactly do we retract? Should we say that Rove had not in fact been indicted? Should we say that our sources provided us with false or misleading information? Had Truthout been used? Without a public statement from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald we felt that it was premature to retract our report.

After spending the past month retracing our steps and confirming facts, we've come full circle. Our sources continue to maintain that a grand jury has in fact returned an indictment. Our sources said that parts of the indictment were read to Karl Rove and his attorney on Friday, May 12, 2006. Last week, we pointed to a sealed federal indictment, case number "06 cr 128," which is still sealed and we are still pointing to it. During lengthy conversations with our sources over the past month, they reiterated that the substance of our report on May 13, 2006, was correct, and immediately following our report, Karl Rove's status in the CIA leak probe changed. In summary, as we press our investigation we find indicators that more of our key facts are correct, not less.

That leaves the most important question: If our sources maintain that a grand jury has returned an indictment - and we have pointed to a criminal case number that we are told corresponds to it - then how is it possible that Patrick Fitzgerald is reported to have said that 'he does not anticipate seeking charges against Rove at this time?' That is a very troubling question, and the truth is, we do not yet have a definitive answer. We also continue to be very troubled that no one has seen the reported communication from Fitzgerald to Rove's attorney Robert Luskin, and more importantly, how so much public judgment could be based on a communication that Luskin will not put on the table. Before we can assess the glaring contradiction between what our sources say and what Luskin says Fitzgerald faxed to him, we need to be able to consider what was faxed - and in its entirety.

What appears to have happened is that - and this is where Truthout blundered - in our haste to report the indictment we never considered the possibility that Patrick Fitzgerald would not make an announcement. We simply assumed - and we should not have done so - that he would tell the press. He did not. Fitzgerald appears to have used the indictment, and more importantly, the fear that it would go public, to extract information about the Plame outing case from Rove.

Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument. From all indications, our reports, first on May 13 that Rove had been indicted, and then on June 12 when we published case number "06 cr 128," forced Rove and Luskin back to the table with Fitzgerald, not once but twice. They apparently sought to avoid public disclosure and were prepared to do what they had to do to avoid it.

The electronic communication from Fitzgerald to Luskin, coming immediately on the heels of our Monday morning, June 12 article "Sealed vs. Sealed" that became the basis for the mainstream media's de facto exoneration of Karl Rove was, our sources told us, negotiated quickly over the phone later that afternoon. Luskin contacted Fitzgerald, reportedly providing concessions that Fitzgerald considered to be of high value, and Fitzgerald reportedly reciprocated with the political cover Rove wanted in the form of a letter that was faxed to Luskin's office.

Our sources provided us with additional detail, saying that Fitzgerald is apparently examining closely Dick Cheney's role in the Valerie Plame matter, and apparently sought information and evidence from Karl Rove that would provide documentation of Cheney's involvement. Rove apparently was reluctant to cooperate and Fitzgerald, it appears, was pressuring him to do so, our sources told us.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is a unique chapter in American history. The probe has managed to shed light into the inner recesses of perhaps the most secretive presidential administration in US history. His mission is not political, and he will not allow it to be.

However, we call upon the Special Counsel to consider the right of the American people to know what has happened. Nothing, we believe, is more important to the survival of democracy than the light of justice, and nothing more damaging than the curtain of secrecy that today surrounds the highest office in the land.

Joe Lauria and The Washington Post's Attacks on Jason Leopold

We are well aware of the Lauria article and the series of attacks The Washington Post has launched against Jason Leopold and Truthout. As always, we will carefully consider all information and then publish a thoughtful response. In this case, we will publish our response on Wednesday, June 21, at 5:00 p.m. Pacific time.

patteeu
06-20-2006, 06:13 AM
Oh no, does this mean that Dick Cheney is in the super secret cross hairs now? ROFL

jAZ: Thank you sir, may I have another!

Cochise
06-20-2006, 06:31 AM
What? More indictments on the way? ROFL

banyon
06-20-2006, 07:45 AM
Oh no, does this mean that Dick Cheney is in the super secret cross hairs now? ROFL

jAZ: Thank you sir, may I have another!

He is still in his last throes.

jAZ
06-20-2006, 01:54 PM
Oh no, does this mean that Dick Cheney is in the super secret cross hairs now? ROFL

jAZ: Thank you sir, may I have another!
Are you suggesting that there is nothing more to this story (Luskin's comments on Rove) than the limited information we have in his statement?

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 03:12 PM
What? More indictments on the way? ROFL

Just TWO more weeks....just two.....you wait.

Bootlegged
06-20-2006, 03:13 PM
:clap:

Donger
06-20-2006, 03:16 PM
Cool. So, he's still not allegedly indicted?

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 03:17 PM
Cool. So, he's still not allegedly indicted?

No, keep up. He's still allegedly indicted but Fitzgerals is waiting for a slow news day to drop the bomb.

Donger
06-20-2006, 03:18 PM
No, keep up. He's still allegedly indicted but Fitzgerals is waiting for a slow news day to drop the bomb.

Oh. Okay, thanks.

I'm in Texas right now and that always makes me a little slow.

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 03:22 PM
Oh. Okay, thanks.

I'm in Texas right now and that always makes me a little slow.

Hope you're not in the part that requires a life jacket. Rumor has it Bush caused all the flooding.

Donger
06-20-2006, 03:23 PM
Hope you're not in the part that requires a life jacket. Rumor has it Bush caused all the flooding.

Nah, Hill Country, such as it is.

patteeu
06-20-2006, 04:01 PM
Are you suggesting that there is nothing more to this story (Luskin's comments on Rove) than the limited information we have in his statement?

I'm saying that your 2 weeks is long gone and yet you still cling to reports from the same newsmax-left website, recxjAZ.

Mr. Laz
06-20-2006, 04:26 PM
the only way rove ever gets indicted ... ever gets so much a bad parking ticket is if....

1. Bush is actually staring down impeachment and rove is the only scapegoat left.

and/or (prolly need some of both)

2. the dems starting winning elections and take control and force it.


Rove is DA MAN in the Bush administration ... aint' no way he get the ax unless Bush doesn't have a choice.

jAZ
06-20-2006, 04:38 PM
I'm saying that your 2 weeks is long gone and yet you still cling to reports from the same newsmax-left website, recxjAZ.
What are you talking about? The "two weeks" was a timeline put forward by Rove's camp and reported by Schuster.

jAZ
06-20-2006, 04:42 PM
I'm saying that your 2 weeks is long gone and yet you still cling to reports from the same newsmax-left website, recxjAZ.
So do you think that there is more to Luskin's story about Rove's indictment?

Or is it simply (as folks here want to make it) that:

1) No evidence exists to charge Rove, and
2) Rove is completely off the hook, and
3) Rove hasn't helped further the case against others in trade for his being "cleared".

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 05:00 PM
So do you think that there is more to Luskin's story about Rove's indictment?

Or is it simply (as folks here want to make it) that:

1) No evidence exists to charge Rove, and
2) Rove is completely off the hook, and
3) Rove hasn't helped further the case against others in trade for his being "cleared".

I know that isn't directed at me but I'll throw my .02 in for free.

I'm guessing even if Plame's role at the CIA was supposed to be covert he found enough witnesses around Washington that knew her true identity it could not easily be proven it was a secret.

And that after looking at the evidence, the fact the CIA would send an ex-ambassador to Niger on some boondoggle without even giving him an Inspector Clueso mustache, the whole thing should have been exposed to show how inept and stupid the CIA actually conducted surveillance.

Sully
06-20-2006, 05:15 PM
Has the horse come back to life yet?

patteeu
06-20-2006, 05:22 PM
So do you think that there is more to Luskin's story about Rove's indictment?

Or is it simply (as folks here want to make it) that:

1) No evidence exists to charge Rove, and
2) Rove is completely off the hook, and
3) Rove hasn't helped further the case against others in trade for his being "cleared".

I'm saying that I don't know the full story just like the full story behind some of the newsmax "theories" aren't completely known. That doesn't mean we have to believe every theory that every wacky website comes up with.

1) You don't need much evidence to charge someone. That's why an indictment against Tom Delay isn't particularly earth-shattering.

2) No one in Washington is completely off the hook. I'd imagine that you could find "wrongdoing" of one sort or another if you scrutinized any Washington DC mover/shaker although much of it would be pretty trivial. I think Rove is most likely in the clear with respect to the Plame affair though.

3) If there is a legitimate case against anyone else, I'd imagine that truthful testimony by Rove could potentially be used against that someone else. I don't think Rove is rolling over on a vast conspiracy at the WH though and I don't think Cheney, in particular, will be indicted or implicated in any wrongdoing, which IIRC is what your bump of this thread was about.

patteeu
06-20-2006, 05:23 PM
Has the horse come back to life yet?

No, but recxjAZ and truthout are trying mouth to mouth on it.

jAZ
06-20-2006, 06:09 PM
I'm saying that I don't know the full story just like the full story behind some of the newsmax "theories" aren't completely known. That doesn't mean we have to believe every theory that every wacky website comes up with.

1) You don't need much evidence to charge someone. That's why an indictment against Tom Delay isn't particularly earth-shattering.

2) No one in Washington is completely off the hook. I'd imagine that you could find "wrongdoing" of one sort or another if you scrutinized any Washington DC mover/shaker although much of it would be pretty trivial. I think Rove is most likely in the clear with respect to the Plame affair though.

3) If there is a legitimate case against anyone else, I'd imagine that truthful testimony by Rove could potentially be used against that someone else. I don't think Rove is rolling over on a vast conspiracy at the WH though and I don't think Cheney, in particular, will be indicted or implicated in any wrongdoing, which IIRC is what your bump of this thread was about.
I'm just trying to get at the heart of your views on this matter. So you aren't sold one way or the other WRT the articles suggestion that

1) Rove was actually technically indicted on May 15th, but
2) it was never annouced because that leaked report
3) caused Rove to further cooperate in the investigation of someone else in the Plame affair?

A lot of people are in a rush to write this whole thing off as being over with. And as such are looking to pile on in this and other threads. I'm just trying to see if you are one of them. That's what it seems to me, but you can clarify your position.

Because the facts as they exist aren't anywhere near so clear cut as those on this thread wish they were.

Logical
06-20-2006, 06:11 PM
jAZ unless a major news outlet releases an indictment report you really need to let this go. It is making you look really bad.

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 06:45 PM
jAZ unless a major news outlet releases an indictment report you really need to let this go. It is making you look really bad.

Heh.

Cochise
06-20-2006, 07:01 PM
Heh.

Wow. Now that's saying something.

Bootlegged
06-20-2006, 07:30 PM
I'm just trying to get at the heart of your views on this matter. So you aren't sold one way or the other WRT the articles suggestion that

1) Rove was actually technically indicted on May 15th, but
2) it was never annouced because that leaked report
3) caused Rove to further cooperate in the investigation of someone else in the Plame affair?

A lot of people are in a rush to write this whole thing off as being over with. And as such are looking to pile on in this and other threads. I'm just trying to see if you are one of them. That's what it seems to me, but you can clarify your position.

Because the facts as they exist aren't anywhere near so clear cut as those on this thread wish they were.

and you get "facts" from truthout.whatever - you act like you were in the room. Get over it.

patteeu
06-20-2006, 07:55 PM
I'm just trying to get at the heart of your views on this matter. So you aren't sold one way or the other WRT the articles suggestion that

1) Rove was actually technically indicted on May 15th, but
2) it was never annouced because that leaked report
3) caused Rove to further cooperate in the investigation of someone else in the Plame affair?

A lot of people are in a rush to write this whole thing off as being over with. And as such are looking to pile on in this and other threads. I'm just trying to see if you are one of them. That's what it seems to me, but you can clarify your position.

Because the facts as they exist aren't anywhere near so clear cut as those on this thread wish they were.

I'm big on taking a wait and see approach in most cases. I think your/truthout's theory is unlikely, but we can wait and see. I'd like to see you be a little more consistent in terms of when you want to wait for all the facts before jumping to conclusions though (although you are better than many of the other lefties around here).

Lurch
07-05-2006, 01:00 PM
Another classic....

Mr. Kotter
07-12-2006, 09:55 PM
Bump. For jAZ. :rolleyes:

Bwana
07-13-2006, 07:41 AM
Another classic....

ROFL

Ouch

Mr. Flopnuts
07-13-2006, 07:53 AM
Is this like Hartwell and Law to sign within 48 hours? Just askin.......

jAZ
08-21-2006, 06:23 PM
Is this like ... Law to sign within 48 hours? Just askin.......
Maybe?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082106Z.shtml

Indictment Still Sealed, Fitzgerald Still Busy
By Jason Leopold and Marc Ash
t r u t h o u t | Report

Monday 21 August 2006

An indictment first reported by Truthout said to be connected to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's Plame investigation remains sealed, and Fitzgerald continues to work on the leak case.

The indictment, 06 cr 128, was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case between May 10 and May 17 - right around the time that Truthout reported, based on sources close to the investigation, that Karl Rove had been indicted on charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

However, that indictment remains under seal more than three months after it was filed - an unusually lengthy period of time, according to experts in the field of federal law. The indictment could be dismissed down the road, meaning the public may never get the opportunity to learn the identity of the defendant or the substance of the criminal case.

These experts said the length of time the indictment has been under seal suggests that the defendant named in the complaint is cooperating with an ongoing investigation and may have accepted a plea agreement.

Former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson said it's very likely that the indictment was sealed in the first place because the "defendant is cooperating with an investigation and the government wants to keep that person's identity secret" to protect the integrity of the investigation.

"It would be extraordinary to keep it sealed as the process goes on," said Levenson, now a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

A two-month investigation undertaken by Truthout into the circumstances that led to Karl Rove's alleged exoneration in the leak probe has once again put the spotlight back on Sealed vs. Sealed, the heading under which 06 cr 128 was filed in US District Court between May 10 and May 17.

During numerous interviews with Truthout, sources with direct knowledge of the behind-the-scenes legal wrangling in the CIA leak case said the indictment specifically relates to the 2˝-year-old leak probe. Other sources who have also been involved in the investigation confirmed this information.

The sources said that it was Karl Rove who led Fitzgerald's office to additional documentary evidence that was not turned over to the Special Prosecutor's staff in the early days of the investigation.

With Rove cooperating, the probe has once again shifted, and the focus now is on another high-level official in the executive branch: Vice President Dick Cheney.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a figure of keen interest to investigators working on the outing of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, former undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. Sources directly familiar with the investigation said Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and his closest confidants suspect that Cheney was "involved in orchestrating a plot to discredit former ambassador Wilson."

Wilson's editorial, "What I Didn't Find in Africa," which was published in the New York Times, raised direct questions about the administration's willingness to manipulate intelligence to facilitate its march to war. In addition, Wilson raised specific questions regarding an alleged attempt by the Hussein government to acquire uranium yellowcake, a component that could be used in the construction of nuclear weapons, from the African nation of Niger. Directly contradicting statements made by George W. Bush only months earlier in his State of the Union address, Wilson not only contended that the statements by Bush regarding the Niger claims were based on highly flawed intelligence, but questioned how the administration could have allowed the debunked claims to be included in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address at all.

In the case of Vice President Cheney there are, according to the sources familiar with the case, "Constitutional issues that must be researched." Sources familiar with the ongoing probe said that Constitutional experts are deliberating with the Plame investigators, and that the vice president views his status as shielded, to some extent, by executive privilege.

Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame matter is still active and ongoing, sources said, and will be for some time. Fitzgerald has long considered bringing additional charges against other individuals in the administration. However, it's unknown whether Fitzgerald's strategy will change as the investigation moves forward. Fitzgerald has yet to comment on the status of the probe or specifically on high profile figures his investigators have focused on. The only public comments that have surfaced thus far on the direction of the investigation have come from Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, and syndicated columnist Bob Novak, who revealed Plame's CIA status in a July 14, 2003, column.

Attempting to gain a clearer picture of the events leading up to the June 12 letter sent by Patrick Fitzgerald to Luskin, our two-month investigation led to several interesting revelations that were communicated to us by well-placed sources. The letter is constructed in a manner consistent with what would be expected when a federal prosecutor writes a letter to a subject's attorney. The letter, we are told, spelled out what was expected of Rove, and made clear the ramifications should he fail to honor the terms of his verbal cooperation agreement with Fitzgerald. According to experts in federal criminal law, that approach is fairly standard given the circumstances.

It was Luskin, sources said, who seized on the single phrase from Fitzgerald's letter that gave the appearance of exoneration trumpeted by the US commercial press. In fact, the letter, taken as a whole, paints no such picture. According to those familiar with the letter sent to Luskin, it details the obligations of a subject, Karl Rove, who must choose between cooperation and further prosecution. If the document were made public it would indicate those obligations, the sources said.

Michael Clark, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice in Houston, Texas, said that he has never heard of a sealed indictment referred to as "Sealed vs. Sealed" despite the fact that more than two dozen cases are filed under that heading in US District Court.

"Two dozen out of hundreds of cases that are filed under 'US vs. [blank]' are still unusual," Clark said. "If this sealed indictment involves a government official, you wouldn't expect that to happen unless you're talking about a high level official and there has been a fair amount of behind the scenes negotiating going on. To have a federal indictment sealed for three months is very unusual."

When told that the federal indictment was returned by the same grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case, Clark said, "There is a good chance there is some linkage there. There aren't any other high profile cases coming out of that court that we know of, so chances are that the indictment involves someone important, and that keeping the identity of the case under seal has to do with the fact that the investigation is ongoing. It's entirely likely that if the person in the indictment is cooperating, the indictment could be dismissed down the road. It's not unheard of."

Clark added that if the indictment continues to remain under seal in the weeks ahead it begins to raise important questions about the transparency of the judicial process.

"If it's still under seal at the end of next month it will start pushing the envelope a bit," he said. "Two months is starting to get unusual. But three months is very unusual."

Loyola's Laurie Levenson agreed, saying that it was unusual to keep federal indictments sealed for a lengthy period of time, such as three months. She added that under the current administration there has been an upswing in keeping federal dockets under seal because of the so-called threat to national security.

However, Levenson added that it also appears as though that line of reasoning has been abused by some officials in order to maintain a level of secrecy

"You now get the sense that it is happening more frequently with the current administration," she said. "We live in interesting times. We do have secret dockets going on in the federal courts, and I never heard of it until this war on terrorism. The longer something is sealed the more curious it is."

John Moustakas, another former federal prosecutor in private practice in Washington, DC, said an indictment could be returned by a grand jury even if the prosecutor did not intend on seeking one.

"The grand jury could have said 'We want to vote,' and they are allowed to return an indictment over the US attorney's objections," Moustakas said. As far as keeping an indictment under seal, he said "it may be that the parties were negotiating a disposition of the case and the defendant and the prosecutor are happy not to have the defendant's name in the press."

Moustakas described a hypothetical scenario that federal prosecutors often use when convincing a defendant under investigation to cooperate:

"Typically what I would do is get evidence of wrongdoing and develop it sufficiently to get an indictment," Moustakas said. "Then I would send a target letter to the defendant. Then you put on a dog and pony show. I would bring him into my office and say, 'Here's the case, here's what you did.' Lay out main evidence against him. I would encourage a pre-indictment plea, which essentially means that it took the indictment to get him to cooperate. It wouldn't be surprising. If the sealed indictment is Karl Rove, there is a really big story there. But my view, generally, is if it's Rove, it smells bad that it's under seal still. It feels like it's intended to benefit the administration. I think the truth is, if he is cooperating against [Scooter] Libby, there is going to come a time soon that the government will have to disclose that fact to Libby's attorneys."

Dan Richman, a former federal prosecutor who is now a law professor at Fordham University in New York, had a somewhat different view. He said that he didn't find it "spectacularly strange" that 06 cr 128 has been under seal for nearly three months.

But, he added that indictments are sealed because if they're made public, "Someone is going to be shocked and upset," and that can hurt the integrity of an ongoing investigation.

mlyonsd
08-21-2006, 06:45 PM
So jAZ, this is starting to look a lot like the Starr investigation. Wouldn't you say?

How much is Fitzgerald costing the taxpayer?

jAZ
08-21-2006, 06:52 PM
So jAZ, this is starting to look a lot like the Starr investigation. Wouldn't you say?

How much is Fitzgerald costing the taxpayer?
I'm not sure how you draw that comparison exactly, (long and drawn out, maybe?). But it's a very focused investigation it seems (who broke the law in leaking plame's identity to the media). Which is night-and-day from the Starr investigation which explicitly sought to expand the scope of the investigation (something that hasn't happened here).

patteeu
08-21-2006, 06:55 PM
So now it's "Cheney to be indicted within 2 weeks!" ROFL

mlyonsd
08-21-2006, 06:59 PM
I'm not sure how you draw that comparison exactly, (long and drawn out, maybe?). But it's a very focused investigation it seems (who broke the law in leaking plame's identity to the media). Which is night-and-day from the Starr investigation which explicitly sought to expand the scope of the investigation (something that hasn't happened here).

Yes, I was looking at it from the "long and drawn out" and "cost" perspectives.

I was just wondering if you think the purse strings should be cut if nothing more happens soon. We both hope Fitzgerald doesn't go down the same path as Starr did if nothing more is going to come of it don't we?

jAZ
08-21-2006, 07:02 PM
So now it's "Cheney to be indicted ..."
It wouldn't be the first time that notion was raised. I have no idea what's going on and whether these guys are any more credible that Nick Anthan, but Law eventually did sign with the Chiefs.

It's not like this is the first time Cheney's name has been brought into this discussion/investigation...

Plamegate: Bush Directed Cheney To Counter War Critic (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=143181)

Former CIA Officer Sues Cheney Over Leak (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=143656)

jAZ
08-21-2006, 07:06 PM
Yes, I was looking at it from the "long and drawn out" and "cost" perspectives.

I was just wondering if you think the purse strings should be cut if nothing more happens soon. We both hope Fitzgerald doesn't go down the same path as Starr did if nothing more is going to come of it don't we?
I'd agree that the investigation should remain focused on this. And every indication (contrary to starr) is that this one remains very, very focused. I'm sure you will agree.

As for the cost and the time, I'd say that's the price of democracy (in both the Clinton and Bush/Rove/Cheney cases). The only thing objectionable about the Clinton thing was the "witchhunt" quality to it.

That "witch-hunt" quality isn't present here, as I'd assum you must agree.

patteeu
08-21-2006, 07:14 PM
It wouldn't be the first time that notion was raised. I have no idea what's going on and whether these guys are any more credible that Nick Anthan, but Law eventually did sign with the Chiefs.

It's not like this is the first time Cheney's name has been brought into this discussion/investigation...

Plamegate: Bush Directed Cheney To Counter War Critic (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=143181)

Former CIA Officer Sues Cheney Over Leak (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=143656)

I have yet to hear a plausible theory about what Cheney could be indicted for (besides possibly some derivative crime like obstruction).

In any event, I think the TruthOut scoops raise the probability of Cheney being indicted by about 0.001%.

mlyonsd
08-21-2006, 07:23 PM
I'd agree that the investigation should remain focused on this. And every indication (contrary to starr) is that this one remains very, very focused. I'm sure you will agree.

As for the cost and the time, I'd say that's the price of democracy (in both the Clinton and Bush/Rove/Cheney cases). The only thing objectionable about the Clinton thing was the "witchhunt" quality to it.

That "witch-hunt" quality isn't present here, as I'd assum you must agree.

No, I wouldn't agree that the focus should remain on just the Plame issue. Not if say during the course of the investigation other evidence was found by Fitzgerald that the administration committed a different crime. I would expect him to do his job and bring it to light.

And as for the "witch-hunt" quality....your thinking Fitzgerald has not committed "witch-hunting" tactics is just your speculation. I am not saying he has mind you, its just that so little has happened lately one would have to wonder what he's up to.

But I also wonder what happened to all those that complained so many times on this board about the cost of Starr's investigation. I'd assume you'd have to agree that if they don't see the Fitzgerald investigation in the same light they'd be hypocritical....I mean from a cost point of view.

jAZ
08-21-2006, 07:47 PM
No, I wouldn't agree that the focus should remain on just the Plame issue. Not if say during the course of the investigation other evidence was found by Fitzgerald that the administration committed a different crime. I would expect him to do his job and bring it to light.
If he went to the Bush Administration (AG Gonzo) to ask to expand the investigation based upon information he uncovered leading him to believe a different crime within the Bush Administration had occured... would you expect the Bush Administration to approve expanding the investigation in the way that the Clinton Administration did with Starr?

And as for the "witch-hunt" quality....your thinking Fitzgerald has not committed "witch-hunting" tactics is just your speculation. I am not saying he has mind you, its just that so little has happened lately one would have to wonder what he's up to.
I'm not sure how an absence of activity and "wonder(ing) what he's up to" leads to the suspicion of "witch-hunt"... whatever.
But I also wonder what happened to all those that complained so many times on this board about the cost of Starr's investigation. I'd assume you'd have to agree that if they don't see the Fitzgerald investigation in the same light they'd be hypocritical....I mean from a cost point of view.
Spending money is only objectionable if the value isn't perceived. By removing the question of the money from the context of the spending, you create a less than meaningful question. In Clinton's case, the money was spent on a witch-hunt culminating in the discovery that Clinton cheated on his wife and lied to hide the fact.

In this case, we are investigating an administrative conspiracy to out a undercover CIA agent during a time of war (for political payback).

The value of the charges under investivation are radically different.

jAZ
08-21-2006, 07:48 PM
I have yet to hear a plausible theory about what Cheney could be indicted for (besides possibly some derivative crime like obstruction).

In any event, I think the TruthOut scoops raise the probability of Cheney being indicted by about 0.001%.
Thanks for your handicapping the case.

Cochise
08-21-2006, 07:57 PM
this is the longest two weeks of my life.

The good news - the Chiefs still have time to figure out a defense!

patteeu
08-22-2006, 05:25 AM
The value of the charges under investivation are radically different.

On that we can agree. This appears to be a far less serious matter.

Amnorix
08-22-2006, 06:55 AM
On that we can agree. This appears to be a far less serious matter.

Tell me you're kidding...?

patteeu
08-22-2006, 07:09 AM
Tell me you're kidding...?

Nope.

Amnorix
08-22-2006, 07:16 AM
Nope.

Kindly remove your political blinders. I agree that the Plame thing is a bit overblown, but the Clinton thing was incredibly overblown. Neither is hugely significant, riveting stuff, in my opinion, other than the tawdry details of Clinton's lovelife.

But the Clinton thing was totally absurd...

patteeu
08-22-2006, 07:57 AM
Kindly remove your political blinders. I agree that the Plame thing is a bit overblown, but the Clinton thing was incredibly overblown. Neither is hugely significant, riveting stuff, in my opinion, other than the tawdry details of Clinton's lovelife.

But the Clinton thing was totally absurd...

The Clinton thing was about the highest law enforcement official in the land abusing the legal system for his own personal benefit. That's not the kind of thing I see as totally absurd.

mlyonsd
08-22-2006, 07:57 AM
If he went to the Bush Administration (AG Gonzo) to ask to expand the investigation based upon information he uncovered leading him to believe a different crime within the Bush Administration had occured... would you expect the Bush Administration to approve expanding the investigation in the way that the Clinton Administration did with Starr?

Would I "expect" Gonzales to expand the investigation? Not only would I want him I'd like to hear the reasons you "expect" him not to.


I'm not sure how an absence of activity and "wonder(ing) what he's up to" leads to the suspicion of "witch-hunt"... whatever.

I don't really suspect a witch-hunt is going on. I just see no reason to keep the investigation open and spend more taxpayer money. It's time for Fitzgerald to play his cards. I would hope if he does have more charges to bring forward he doesn't wait until just before the election.


Spending money is only objectionable if the value isn't perceived. By removing the question of the money from the context of the spending, you create a less than meaningful question. In Clinton's case, the money was spent on a witch-hunt culminating in the discovery that Clinton cheated on his wife and lied to hide the fact.

In this case, we are investigating an administrative conspiracy to out a undercover CIA agent during a time of war (for political payback).

The value of the charges under investivation are radically different.

I wouldn't call the base cause for the two investigations radically different. The fact you always choose to diminish Clinton's mistakes is predictable. The whole Lewinsky thing came to light because Clinton initially stepped on the civil rights of an employee of the State of Arkansas. Usually most liberals would grab their pitch forks and rope when something like that happens. It has always been fun to watch people on this board become inflicted with selective amnesia when it comes to Clinton stepping on a person's civil rights but then turn right back around and blame Bush for doing the same with the NSA program. Too funny.

As to the Plame case, what you call a conspiracy for political payback I call an effort to expose the truth of what the Wilson trip really was and always has been....a poorly conceived plan by the CIA. One that in the end helped prove their own case that Iraq had sought yellow cake.

If, when exposing the trip for what it was the administration did break a law I say hold those people accountable. Even if it does go up the chain. I have no problem with that.

But to suggest Plame's civil rights > Paula Jones civil rights is about as partisan a position as you can take.

Amnorix
08-22-2006, 08:02 AM
The Clinton thing was about the highest law enforcement official in the land abusing the legal system for his own personal benefit. That's not the kind of thing I see as totally absurd.

Who abused what for whom, at whose benefit, and at whose cost? The whole thing was a set up by his political opponents. Perhaps if it had been a real case, as opposed to political blackmail and greenmail, I might be a bit more sympathetic.

patteeu
08-22-2006, 08:09 AM
Who abused what for whom, at whose benefit, and at whose cost? The whole thing was a set up by his political opponents. Perhaps if it had been a real case, as opposed to political blackmail and greenmail, I might be a bit more sympathetic.

He lied under oath in an effort to frustrate Paula Jones' attempt to litigate her complaint against him to, obviously, his own benefit.

I have no desire to reargue the Clinton scandals with you so you can have the last word if you want. Otherwise, the best I can do is agree to disagree.

Mr. Kotter
08-22-2006, 09:31 AM
Who abused what for whom, at whose benefit, and at whose cost? The whole thing was a set up by his political opponents. Perhaps if it had been a real case, as opposed to political blackmail and greenmail, I might be a bit more sympathetic.

So, are you suggesting that we should simply dismiss all civil lawsuits for sexual harrasment......because, well, there's some political or personal motive, that others might attribute the case to? :rolleyes:

go bowe
08-22-2006, 10:28 AM
I have yet to hear a plausible theory about what Cheney could be indicted for (besides possibly some derivative crime like obstruction).

In any event, I think the TruthOut scoops raise the probability of Cheney being indicted by about 0.001%.errrr... let's see...

cheney could be indicted for usurping the office of president...

and the president could be indicted for impersonating a president...

and then haliburton could be impeached for war profitering..

and judge taylor could be shot...

Bootlegged
08-22-2006, 10:37 AM
ROFL It's ALIVE.....It's ALIVE!!!!!!!!

go bowe
08-22-2006, 10:40 AM
* * *
But to suggest Plame's civil rights > Paula Jones civil rights is about as partisan a position as you can take.not necessarily...

in the jones case, the civil right involved was alleged sexual harassment and there were no other significant ramifiications to that harrassment, if it indeed occured...

in the case of plame, not only were her civil rights (if you can call it that) violated, but there were serious ramifications involving secret operations of the cia...

cia front companies were outed, other agents who worked in those front companies were indirectly outed, and everybody who ever had contact with her in foreign countries came under suspicion of those countries security services, if not actually put at risk...

you don't have to be partisan to recognize the difference...

go bowe
08-22-2006, 10:45 AM
So, are you suggesting that we should simply dismiss all civil lawsuits for sexual harrasment......because, well, there's some political or personal motive, that others might attribute the case to? :rolleyes:oh goateed one, wise upon years, learned in the ways of magical non-partisanship...

how could anybody, even you, get that out of what ammo was saying?

nobody suggested dismissing anything...

except maybe your comment...

c'mon, quite multitasking and give us something more entertaining...

idle minds make the devil's playground or some such happy horseshit... :p :p :p

Amnorix
08-22-2006, 11:07 AM
So, are you suggesting that we should simply dismiss all civil lawsuits for sexual harrasment......because, well, there's some political or personal motive, that others might attribute the case to? :rolleyes:

Yes, precisely.

Amnorix
08-22-2006, 11:09 AM
ROFL It's ALIVE.....It's ALIVE!!!!!!!!

No, Patteeu has declared it dead for his part, and I do the same for mine.

This argument has been had, re-had, re-re-had, unhad, redid, unreheredid ad nauseum.

Cochise
08-22-2006, 11:20 AM
No, Patteeu has declared it dead for his part, and I do the same for mine.

This argument has been had, re-had, re-re-had, unhad, redid, unreheredid ad nauseum.

Right, then.

See you all back here "within two weeks" when teh real indiktmints come down and cheney is exercuted!!!123456 I read it on bloggityblogblogagainstbush so it must be teh true.

go bowe
08-22-2006, 11:28 AM
Right, then.

See you all back here "within two weeks" when teh real indiktmints come down and cheney is exercuted!!!123456 I read it on bloggityblogblogagainstbush so it must be teh true.aha...

i knew it had to be cheney...

bush is da bebil, but cheney is his brain... :p :p :p

Baby Lee
08-22-2006, 11:32 AM
aha...

i knew it had to be cheney...

bush is da bebil, but cheney is his brain... :p :p :p
Now when you call bush da bebil, you mean da King James version?

Mr. Kotter
08-22-2006, 12:15 PM
oh goateed one, wise upon years, learned in the ways of magical non-partisanship...

how could anybody, even you, get that out of what ammo was saying?

nobody suggested dismissing anything...

... :p :p :pApparently at least him.....according to his answer, which did NOT include a smiley. So I guess I was right...:shrug:
Yes, precisely...
I'd notify NOW, but they'd probably picket his workplace and home with flea-infested unemployed FemiNaizis....and that would be so wrong.

:p

mlyonsd
08-22-2006, 05:08 PM
not necessarily...

in the jones case, the civil right involved was alleged sexual harassment and there were no other significant ramifiications to that harrassment, if it indeed occured...

in the case of plame, not only were her civil rights (if you can call it that) violated, but there were serious ramifications involving secret operations of the cia...

cia front companies were outed, other agents who worked in those front companies were indirectly outed, and everybody who ever had contact with her in foreign countries came under suspicion of those countries security services, if not actually put at risk...

you don't have to be partisan to recognize the difference...

so you agree with the idea that Plame's rights > Jone's rights.

Baby Lee
08-22-2006, 05:16 PM
so you agree with the idea that Plame's rights > Jone's rights.
I think he stated that Plame's situation exceeded her personal civil rights to the operations of governmental interests.
Jones' rights are important, but no one's getting a bullet to the brain in Czechoslovakia if she loses her case.

mlyonsd
08-22-2006, 05:45 PM
I think he stated that Plame's situation exceeded her personal civil rights to the operations of governmental interests.
Jones' rights are important, but no one's getting a bullet to the brain in Czechoslovakia if she loses her case.

I don't care what the hippee thinks. If he can't agree that the Clinton thing wasn't about just him cheating on his wife and instead stepping on Jone's civil rights he's going to be tossed into a lake. Probably in NW Missouri I might add. :p

Baby Lee
08-22-2006, 05:50 PM
I don't care what the hippee thinks.
So. . . you ask him what he thinks, then state you don't care what he thinks? Waste time, much? ;)
If he can't agree that the Clinton thing wasn't about just him cheating on his wife and instead stepping on Jone's civil rights he's going to be tossed into a lake. Probably in NW Missouri I might add. :p
Don't think he's ever stated such. MoF, imagine he's smarter than that.

mlyonsd
08-22-2006, 05:57 PM
So. . . you ask him what he thinks, then state you don't care what he thinks? Waste time, much? ;)

Don't think he's ever stated such. MoF, imagine he's smarter than that.

Unless I'm missing something go bo and I are good and will settle this over a beer.

go bowe
08-22-2006, 06:31 PM
only one beer?

go bowe
08-22-2006, 06:55 PM
I don't care what the hippee thinks. If he can't agree that the Clinton thing wasn't about just him cheating on his wife and instead stepping on Jone's civil rights he's going to be tossed into a lake. Probably in NW Missouri I might add. :pyou know, you keep talking about that silly lake (which is really just a small pond)...

ya got me so worried that i went out and bought a pair of 5x swimming trunks just for the party...

go bowe
08-22-2006, 06:58 PM
So. . . you ask him what he thinks, then state you don't care what he thinks? Waste time, much? ;)

Don't think he's ever stated such. MoF, imagine he's smarter than that.eh, he's the only one who calls me a hippee (hipp-ee? shouldn't that be hippy?)...

and i if i go in the lake, he's going with me... :p :p :p

btw, i appreciate the compliment...

go bowe
08-22-2006, 09:08 PM
I think he stated that Plame's situation exceeded her personal civil rights to the operations of governmental interests.
Jones' rights are important, but no one's getting a bullet to the brain in Czechoslovakia if she loses her case.as usual, you put it much more succinctly...

jiveturkey
08-28-2006, 02:49 PM
I haven't found a link but I saw on the TV this morning that Richard Armitage was the leaker.

mlyonsd
08-28-2006, 03:04 PM
I haven't found a link but I saw on the TV this morning that Richard Armitage was the leaker.

It was reported on the Newsweek website so take it with a grain of salt. Newsweek doesn't really have a stellar track record on it's reporting.

Russert asked Novak point blank yesterday if it was Armitage.

Although he declined to answer Novak did say he thought it was about time for his source to reveal himself.

I'm all for it so this thread could finally die in peace.

jiveturkey
08-28-2006, 03:12 PM
^It was the same Newsweek guy on the Today Show this morning. He said it in a matter of fact sort of way.

He also mentioned that mutiple people associated with the situation have confirmed. Apparently Armitage figured out that it was a dumb move early on and went right to the DoJ.

I'll hold on to the grain of salt just in case.

jAZ
08-28-2006, 03:32 PM
Here's the article...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

jAZ
08-28-2006, 04:50 PM
I just caught a segment of Fox News covering the Armitage story and they are playing in full spin mode on this story.

They rightly qualify their statements with "if this is true" because that's currently at least a small "if"...

Anyway... the only conclusion their "contributors" will permit to be drawn from this scenario is that if Armitage is involved, then Rove, Libby, Cheney, Bush and everyone else are not only off the hook, but sympathetic figures in this whole "conspriacy theory".

ROFL

patteeu
08-28-2006, 05:25 PM
I just caught a segment of Fox News covering the Armitage story and they are playing in full spin mode on this story.

They rightly qualify their statements with "if this is true" because that's currently at least a small "if"...

Anyway... the only conclusion their "contributors" will permit to be drawn from this scenario is that if Armitage is involved, then Rove, Libby, Cheney, Bush and everyone else are not only off the hook, but sympathetic figures in this whole "conspriacy theory".

ROFL

Don't you agree that it would put a pretty hefty stake in the heart of the conspiracy theory that has Dick Cheney sending his minions out to "get back at Joe Wilson" by outing his wife?

mlyonsd
08-28-2006, 06:37 PM
Don't you agree that it would put a pretty hefty stake in the heart of the conspiracy theory that has Dick Cheney sending his minions out to "get back at Joe Wilson" by outing his wife?

Silly you.

Of course it could only imply without a doubt that Cheney had Armitage in some sort of mind control spell....the same spell he used on those to conduct 911.

Yup, this whole thing is finally coming together and making sense.

jAZ
08-28-2006, 09:36 PM
Don't you agree that it would put a pretty hefty stake in the heart of the conspiracy theory that has Dick Cheney sending his minions out to "get back at Joe Wilson" by outing his wife?
Not really... from what I've read Armatige had a repultation as being a blabermouth. If that's the case, he's quite useful as a laundering scapegoat.

How much brainpower would it take to do the following?

1) Decide to expose VP in retaliation to JW.
2) Recognize that doing so yourself is a MAJOR no-no.
3) Agree between Rove, Novak, Libby and Cheney that Novak would write the article outing VP, but only if he could get Armitage to be the "source".
4) Have Libby inform Armitage of VP's identity.
5) Have Novak call Armitage asking for confirmation.

patteeu
08-28-2006, 09:57 PM
Not really... from what I've read Armatige had a repultation as being a blabermouth. If that's the case, he's quite useful as a laundering scapegoat.

How much brainpower would it take to do the following?

1) Decide to expose VP in retaliation to JW.
2) Recognize that doing so yourself is a MAJOR no-no.
3) Agree between Rove, Novak, Libby and Cheney that Novak would write the article outing VP, but only if he could get Armitage to be the "source".
4) Have Libby inform Armitage of VP's identity.
5) Have Novak call Armitage asking for confirmation.

Well hell, I guess you're right. And another possibility would be if Cheney constructed a robot that was indistinguishable from Armitage and had that robot tip Novak and Woodward off to Plame's identity while abducting Armitage and holding him in a secret location before shipping him off to one of our CIA black prisons.

I think your "operative" training is really paying off! :p

Mr. Kotter
09-12-2006, 09:50 AM
Did I miss Rove's indictment, by chance? :hmmm:

I'm sure it's about to happen if it hasn't; Justin says so.

Radar Chief
09-12-2006, 10:01 AM
What? You mean it was all just a “witch hunt”?

Fitzgerald Told Armitage to Keep Quiet
September 06, 2006 12:49 PM EST


By Sher Zieve – It has already been reported that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew that no one in the Bush Administration was responsible for any leak of Valerie Plame’s name before he began his investigation into the Bush Administration. Via a phone call from Richard Armitage, Fitzgerald knew former State Department employee Armitage was the actual “leaker”.
But, it is now being revealed that Fitzgerald told Armitage not to say anything about [his] being the actual leak source. Instead, Fitzgerald pursued his case against the Bush Administration.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) is reported to have been one of the first Democrats to call for Fitzgerald to pursue criminal charges against the Bush Administration and praised the prosecutor as a “prosecutor’s prosecutor”.

Fitzgerald’s case against the Bush Administration has been alluded to as being both unethical and a fraud by some legal analysts. The Fitgerald prosecution of the Bush Administration is also being called 'a smear campaign against a sitting Republican president'.

ROFL (http://theconservativevoice.com/article/18062.html#)

Mr. Kotter
09-12-2006, 10:42 AM
What? You mean it was all just a “witch hunt”?



ROFL (http://theconservativevoice.com/article/18062.html#)

No, no. Not possible. Witch hunts, by definition, are conducted by conservatives to target liberals.

Similar investigations by liberals, to target conservatives, are simply "Congressional Oversight" and "Transparency in Government" initiatives aimed at identifying corruption and malfeasance--which, of course, liberals are never guilty of.

KCWolfman
09-15-2006, 01:17 AM
I guess Fitzgerald and company were just acting on poor intel.

I thought the libbies were all crying about that kind of thing?

Mr. Kotter
10-04-2006, 06:16 PM
Mods:

Can we get this into the HOC?

LMAO

Mr. Kotter
10-09-2006, 09:51 AM
Mods:

Can we get this into the HOC?

LMAO

I'm serious. Come on mods.....ROFL

Chief Henry
10-09-2006, 10:44 AM
"You mean Rove wasn't indicted yet. When did this NOT happen.

KCWolfman
10-10-2006, 12:30 PM
"You mean Rove wasn't indicted yet. When did this NOT happen.
Oh, he was indicted on Inauguration Day 6 almost 6 years ago. It's just that liberal indictments don't mean squat in the real world.

I don't blame jAZ for letting this one drop - he really looks foolish believing all that crap, doesn't he?

Mr. Kotter
10-10-2006, 02:38 PM
....I don't blame jAZ for letting this one drop - he really looks foolish believing all that crap, doesn't he?

ROFL

Cochise
10-10-2006, 02:47 PM
These two weeks are defying the laws of space and time.

NewChief
10-10-2006, 03:23 PM
The Dark Prince is visiting Northwest Arkansas today; a palpable cloud of evil hangs over my corner of the state.

jAZ
10-11-2006, 04:10 AM
Remind me of the facts at this point...

Did Fitzgerald clear Rove yet?
Did Fitzgerald close his investigation yet?

Just checking.

Cochise
10-11-2006, 06:12 AM
Remind me of the facts at this point...

Did Fitzgerald clear Rove yet?
Did Fitzgerald close his investigation yet?

Just checking.

Did he indict him within two weeks yet?

stevieray
10-11-2006, 06:49 AM
Did he indict him within two weeks yet?

Jaz would get voted off the island before the boat landed.

Radar Chief
10-11-2006, 06:53 AM
Remind me of the facts at this point...

Did Fitzgerald clear Rove yet?
Did Fitzgerald close his investigation yet?

Just checking.

:LOL: Remind me of the facts, was Rove indicted? :hmmm:

Just check'n. ROFL

patteeu
10-11-2006, 09:03 AM
Remind me of the facts at this point...

Did Fitzgerald clear Rove yet?
Did Fitzgerald close his investigation yet?

Just checking.

If Fitzgerald's investigation goes on long enough, Rove might actually break a law before it ends.

jAZ
10-11-2006, 10:23 AM
Did he indict him within two weeks yet?
That one... we don't know the answer to.

Radar Chief
10-11-2006, 10:48 AM
That one... we don't know the answer to.

:spock: Uh no. Since this topic was posted May 9, ’06 it’s easily determinable that the “two week” time period has elapsed.
But keep spin’n jAZ, maybe no one will notice. ROFL

Mr. Kotter
10-11-2006, 11:33 AM
:spock: Uh no. Since this topic was posted May 9, ’06 it’s easily determinable that the “two week” time period has elapsed.
But keep spin’n jAZ, maybe no one will notice. ROFL

Two weeks in Justin's world has not yet ended....

jAZ
10-11-2006, 11:38 AM
Since this topic was posted May 9, ’06 it’s easily determinable that the “two week” time period has elapsed.
Yes... we agree to that fact.

Cochise
10-11-2006, 11:53 AM
It's important to note that we shouldn't just be laughing at jaz for believing this tripe. We should remember to laugh at Olbermann and Shuster too.

jAZ
10-11-2006, 12:15 PM
It's important to note that we shouldn't just be laughing at jaz for believing this tripe. We should remember to laugh at Olbermann and Shuster too.
Why didn't you extend your specific comments further? We agree the 2 weeks has passed. What about the other portion? Or are you unable to assert as fact that Rove has not actually be indicted?

You assume I believe anything for fact. It's the opposite. Everyone on this thread mocking me believes it to be fact that Rove hasn't been indicted... and in fact wasn't indicted within (or around) the 2 week time frame.

I have no idea... but the facts that we all know for sure is that no indictement has been made public... and 2 weeks has passed.

Those don't factually add up to no indictement existing.

There's just no way around that fact at this point. And until Fitzgerald publishes his findings or closes his investigation... anyone suggesting anything else as fact is completely detached from reality.

Anyone standing by and saying... "we don't know the facts yet"... like myself... is taking the only accurate position available.

ck_IN
10-11-2006, 12:22 PM
<i>he facts that we all know for sure is that no indictement has been made public.</i>

While its true that you can't prove a negative I do believe that the absence of a collective media and Democratic orgasm is pretty fair proof that such an indictment doesn't exist. If one did exist I'd bet the entire editorial board of the NY Times would have to have a cigarette to recover in the afterglow.

Actually I was kind of hoping he would be indicted. That would give him a platform to show what a complete partisan farce this is.

One more thing, I thought Clinton proved perjury wasn't a crime. At least he wasn't convicted for it.

patteeu
10-11-2006, 02:06 PM
Why didn't you extend your specific comments further? We agree the 2 weeks has passed. What about the other portion? Or are you unable to assert as fact that Rove has not actually be indicted?

You assume I believe anything for fact. It's the opposite. Everyone on this thread mocking me believes it to be fact that Rove hasn't been indicted... and in fact wasn't indicted within (or around) the 2 week time frame.

I have no idea... but the facts that we all know for sure is that no indictement has been made public... and 2 weeks has passed.

Those don't factually add up to no indictement existing.

There's just no way around that fact at this point. And until Fitzgerald publishes his findings or closes his investigation... anyone suggesting anything else as fact is completely detached from reality.

Anyone standing by and saying... "we don't know the facts yet"... like myself... is taking the only accurate position available.

There is more evidence of democrat complicity in the breaking of the Foley news than there is in the "Rove was indicted in 2 weeks" theory. In the Foley case you aren't willing to maintain an open mind and wait for the facts to develop but in this case you are? That's more than just inconsistency.

jAZ
10-11-2006, 02:23 PM
While its true that you can't prove a negative I do believe that the absence of a collective media and Democratic orgasm is pretty fair proof that such an indictment doesn't exist.
First of all, that's a logical fallacy. Secondly, if there is a secret indictment, it would only be secret if it WASN'T disclosed to the media.

Finally, the "theory" that's out there (and yes, it's only a theory... just like the theoy that he won't/wasn't indicted) is that Fitzgerald issued the indictment paperwork, submitted it to Rove and used the threat to get Rove to cooperate... and that the indictment has been "issued" but not "recorded" (or submitted to the court).

I have no idea what the facts are... but I know that no one else here does either at this point.

jAZ
10-11-2006, 02:26 PM
There is more evidence of democrat complicity in the breaking of the Foley news than there is in the "Rove was indicted in 2 weeks" theory. In the Foley case you aren't willing to maintain an open mind and wait for the facts to develop but in this case you are? That's more than just inconsistency.
Actually, that's not true. At best it's about the same. All the evidence in the Foley/Dem thing goes against your case. You are left with an unsupported theory... much like this case here.

Mr. Kotter
10-11-2006, 02:29 PM
There is more evidence of democrat complicity in the breaking of the Foley news than there is in the "Rove was indicted in 2 weeks" theory. In the Foley case you aren't willing to maintain an open mind and wait for the facts to develop but in this case you are? That's more than just inconsistency.


"...but, but......but......THAT's different!"

Waaahhhhh. Boo-friggin-hoo...... :deevee::deevee::deevee:

listopencil
10-11-2006, 04:12 PM
05/09/06 plus two weeks?

patteeu
10-11-2006, 06:04 PM
Actually, that's not true. At best it's about the same. All the evidence in the Foley/Dem thing goes against your case. You are left with an unsupported theory... much like this case here.

Even if that were true, it still makes you a hypocrit in the Foley case.

But the fact is, it's not true. You just aren't willing to admit to the evidence that exists in Foley.

KCWolfman
10-11-2006, 11:51 PM
Remind me of the facts at this point...

Did Fitzgerald clear Rove yet?
Did Fitzgerald close his investigation yet?

Just checking.
The facts are simple.

You stated Karl Rove would be indicted in two weeks approximately 20 weeks ago, and as usual, you cannot admit you are wrong about something.

Those are the most glaring facts I see on this thread

KCWolfman
10-11-2006, 11:53 PM
I have no idea what the facts are... but I know that no one else here does either at this point.
Then it was nothing but foolish and careless of you to post this thread originally wasn't it?

Kinda like not having good intel and running amok with it, eh?

Chief Henry
10-12-2006, 07:41 AM
Then it was nothing but foolish and careless of you to post this thread originally wasn't it?

Kinda like not having good intel and running amok with it, eh?






Grand Slam Wolfman

ck_IN
10-12-2006, 12:12 PM
<i>I have no idea what the facts are... but I know that no one else here does either at this point.</i>

We do know one fact: There's no public indictment of Karl Rove for <b>anything</b>. The last time I checked the burdeon of guilt was on the prosecuter. Therefore, logically speaking, with the absence of a public indictment one must assume one doesn't exist.

As you see you're also incorrect with your use of logic. You can't prove a negative, you can simply infer it. There might be an indictment of Rove sitting in a pickle jar in Fitzgeralds basement but the evidence infers that it doesn't exist.

Donger
10-12-2006, 12:23 PM
Nice to see that jAZ is still incapable of uttering those three, little words.

It's bizarre. Almost pathological.

Cochise
10-12-2006, 01:08 PM
Nice to see that jAZ is still incapable of uttering those three, little words.

It's bizarre. Almost pathological.

You can't bet you won't hear them even if the entire matter is concluded in some way that would kick it through the current location of the goalposts, either.

Brock
10-12-2006, 01:10 PM
What's the big deal? Rove is only allegedly unindicted at this point.

Logical
10-12-2006, 01:31 PM
399

Logical
10-12-2006, 01:32 PM
400 (at least on the thread page) I never noticed that the internal count does not match the thread page count. Interesting

Radar Chief
10-12-2006, 01:41 PM
399

:LOL:

400 (at least on the thread page) I never noticed that the internal count does not match the thread page count. Interesting

I can’t remember if it’s always been this way, or if it began with the new format, but the topic start counts as Post #1.

KC-TBB
10-12-2006, 02:26 PM
Trying to follow all of this, but I guess it's OK that Clinton lied under oath but for some reason if Rove did it, it's not? Can you say, WTF???

ck_IN
10-12-2006, 02:40 PM
<i>Trying to follow all of this, but I guess it's OK that Clinton lied under oath but for some reason if Rove did it, it's not? Can you say, WTF???</i>

Welcome to the Alice in Wonderland world that libs live in. I hope you like your stay and if you don't the libs will find a way to blame Bush.

mlyonsd
11-14-2006, 06:50 PM
Seeing as its been over a month I was wondering if we could get an update on this.

Is jAZ or anybody else still following this?

go bowe
11-14-2006, 09:18 PM
Seeing as its been over a month I was wondering if we could get an update on this.

Is jAZ or anybody else still following this?didn't you hear?

rove was secretly indicted, tried, impeached and hung by his heels...

just about 2 weeks after jaz started this thread... :p :p :p

mlyonsd
11-15-2006, 05:49 PM
didn't you hear?

rove was secretly indicted, tried, impeached and hung by his heels...

just about 2 weeks after jaz started this thread... :p :p :p

No...somehow I missed that. Evidently so did Keith Olberman.

I was reading thru threads and came on one where jAZ said he felt "vindicated" that the public saw thru the GOP messaging machine.

A statement like that could only allow one to assume Fitzgerald had actually indicted Rove.

Unless of course maybe you wanted to admit that you yourself was part of some Democrat messaging machine, spewing lies. Maybe that's what the "Can we change the tone in our own little DC" thread was intended to do.

ck_IN
11-16-2006, 10:17 AM
Perhaps they're going to bundle this in with the impeachment of Bush and Cheny. Perhaps even include that German war crimes charge against Rumsfield.

I'm patiently waiting.

KCWolfman
11-16-2006, 03:32 PM
Perhaps they're going to bundle this in with the impeachment of Bush and Cheny. Perhaps even include that German war crimes charge against Rumsfield.

I'm patiently waiting.
Like Denise's secret NFL drug ring story she supported years ago, I am sure it will all come to light soon.

Calcountry
11-16-2006, 07:03 PM
..

Mr. Kotter
01-26-2007, 07:09 PM
jAZ....hey, buddy....you should have just bumped THIS thread instead of starting a new one. :)

jAZ
01-26-2007, 07:33 PM
Did I start a new Rove thread? Sorry. Where did I do that?

Brock
01-26-2007, 07:38 PM
This topic is still amusing.

Mr. Kotter
01-26-2007, 07:40 PM
Did I start a new Rove thread? Sorry. Where did I do that?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=157188

A couple of days ago, but the point is the same. You just should have bumped this one....

Pardon me, I don't pay much real attention to your threads, because if someone's participated in one of your threads....they've pretty much participated in all of your threads. They are all pretty much the same blather; so I apologize for overlooking it the past 48 hours or so....or else I would have commented earlier. My bad. Heh.

;)

Mr. Kotter
01-26-2007, 07:41 PM
This topic is still amusing.

Whenever Justin begins to get full of himself, I tend to go back for a few good laughs in the early posts of this thread....heh. ROFL

Brock
01-26-2007, 07:44 PM
Whenever Justin begins to get full of himself, I tend to go back for a few good laughs in the early posts of this thread....heh. ROFL

It's not funny to me because he was wrong. It's so damn funny because he will never admit when he's wrong. Ever.

Takes all kinds I guess...

Mr. Kotter
01-26-2007, 07:46 PM
It's not funny to me because he was wrong. It's so damn funny because he will never admit when he's wrong. Ever.

Takes all kinds I guess...

Agree 100% ROFL

jAZ
01-26-2007, 08:45 PM
It's not funny to me because he was wrong. It's so damn funny because he will never admit when he's wrong. Ever.

As go bo pointed out...
shuster's prediction (and that of other reporters) turned out to be wrong...
He's right.

As for my admission (several times on this thread)...
If anything would improve the thread title it would be "MSNBC's Schuster: Rove to be indicted within 2 weeks".

stevieray
01-26-2007, 08:52 PM
As go bo pointed out...

He's right.

As for my admission (several times on this thread)...

please jaz, do not pass this bs onto your son..

Brock
01-26-2007, 09:26 PM
As go bo pointed out...

He's right.

As for my admission (several times on this thread)...


I expected no less....

jAZ
01-26-2007, 09:33 PM
I expected no less....
Thanks. I try to be vigilant to attribute quotes, sources and facts. Glad you recognized that about me with this last post.

Donger
01-26-2007, 09:34 PM
I must admit, I was somewhat taken aback by jAZ' inability to admit being wrong when I discovered it. Now that he's a father, it's somewhat more amusing.

jAZ
01-26-2007, 09:54 PM
I must admit, I was somewhat taken aback by jAZ' inability to admit being wrong when I discovered it. Now that he's a father, it's somewhat more amusing.
Yeah... I'm sorry to have confused you. It would have been better to use the thread title "MSNBC: ...".

Who knew so many people would deliberately ignore the links, written transcript, video and quotes provided in the opening post?

I was wrong to expect more.

stevieray
01-26-2007, 10:03 PM
I was wrong
truer words have never been spoken.

jAZ
01-26-2007, 10:24 PM
truer words have never been spoken.
I guess so... who knew I needed to cite my source not only twice in the opening post (both with links to video and a transcript of the video)... but also a 3rd time in the subject line...

How could I have so wrongly expected more from this board.

I'll never live that down.

(gasp!)

Logical
01-26-2007, 10:25 PM
I will be the first to admit that jAZ's defense of the points in the links is what got him in trouble. But the childishness of his opponents in forever bringing this thread back to the top is pretty much a display of the level of maturity of some on this BB.

Mr. Kotter
01-26-2007, 10:32 PM
I will be the first to admit that jAZ's defense of the points in the links is what got him in trouble. But the childishness of his opponents in forever bringing this thread back to the top is pretty much a display of the level of maturity of some on this BB.

Jim?

Suck an egg.

:)

jAZ
01-26-2007, 10:36 PM
I will be the first to admit that jAZ's defense of the points in the links is what got him in trouble.
Which post(s) do you consider me defending points in the links? I was careful to present MSNBC's report rather than my own opinions.

Mr. Kotter
01-26-2007, 10:42 PM
Which post(s) do you consider me defending points in the links? I was careful to present MSNBC's report rather than my own opinions.

Holy shit....ROFL

Logical
01-26-2007, 10:46 PM
Jim?

Suck an egg.

:)Took that personally did you. Feeling guilty?

stevieray
01-26-2007, 10:46 PM
How could I have so wrongly expected


(gasp!)

again, truer words have never been spoken..you're condescending attitude has preceeded you for five years, mimimum...

I hope that someday you will realize the error of your ways...

Logical
01-26-2007, 10:51 PM
again, truer words have never been spoken..you're condescending attitude has preceeded you for five years, mimimum...

I hope that someday you will realize the error of your ways...

Hey Stevie are we not all condescending in a way. Your tendencies show themselves when you attack others for attacking the Chiefs, like you are better than us because you don't do that. I am just saying that I cannot think of a lot of folks around here who do not come across as condescending. I certainly do, probably more than most in fact.

stevieray
01-26-2007, 10:53 PM
Hey Stevie are we not all condescending in a way. Your tendencies show themselves when you attack others for attacking the Chiefs, like you are better than us because you don't do that. I am just saying that I cannot think of a lot of folks around here who do not come across as condescending. I certainly do, probably more than most in fact.

I rail on the chiefs as much as the next person, if not more.....I just don't feel compelled to be validated by it on a daily basis...

Logical
01-26-2007, 10:57 PM
I rail on the chiefs as much as the next person, if not more.....I just don't feel compelled to be validated by it on a daily basis...

Did you ever finish that mural? If so could you post a photo of it?

stevieray
01-26-2007, 10:58 PM
Did you ever finish that mural? If so could you post a photo of it? tomorrow my friend...duty calls.. :)

Mr. Kotter
04-12-2007, 07:06 AM
Two MORE weeks....


-- jAZ

patteeu
04-12-2007, 08:37 AM
jAZ tells me he might be executed under the right circumstances. LMAO

Seriously, Karl Rove must look like someone who molested jAZ when he was young or something.

Cochise
04-12-2007, 09:00 AM
jAZ tells me he might be executed under the right circumstances. LMAO


Hey we're coming up on the one year anniversary of his indictment :p

I wonder when the last person executed for treason was. I know most people like the Rosenbergs were tried for espionage, obviously that wouldn't apply to whatever debbilish act Rove would be executed over.

go bowe
04-13-2007, 11:25 AM
i'm not sure, but i think the last time the military
executed somebody was back in wwii when some german spies were hanged (hung?) at the usdb in leavenworth...

go bowe
04-13-2007, 11:39 AM
I will be the first to admit that jAZ's defense of the points in the links is what got him in trouble. But the childishness of his opponents in forever bringing this thread back to the top is pretty much a display of the level of maturity of some on this BB.ooops...

i didn't mean to do that, really...

something possessed me...

please call the nearest exorcist...

if that doesn't work, call a taxidermist... :) :) :)

Stinger
08-13-2007, 09:19 AM
Well it wasn't exactly 2 weeks but just a bump on a classic thread with todays news


Karl Rove to Resign
At the End of August
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
August 13, 2007 11:05 a.m.

Karl Rove, President Bush's longtime political adviser, is resigning as White House deputy chief of staff effective Aug. 31, and returning to Texas, marking a turning point for the Bush presidency.

Mr. Rove's departure removes one of the White House's most polarizing figures, and perhaps signals the effective end of the lame duck administration's role in shaping major domestic policy decisions, where the former Texas political consultant was a driving force. Mr. Rove revealed his plans in an interview with Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

Mr. Rove, who has held senior posts in the White House since President Bush took office in January 2001, told Mr. Gigot he first floated the idea of leaving a year ago. But he delayed his departure as, first, Democrats took Congress, and then as the White House tackled debates on immigration and Iraq, he said. He said he decided to leave after White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten told senior aides that if they stayed past Labor Day they would be obliged to remain through the end of the president's term in January 2009.

"I just think it's time," Mr. Rove said in the interview. "There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family." Mr. Rove and his wife have a home in Ingram, Texas, and a son who attends college in nearby San Antonio.

In the interview, Mr. Rove said he expects Democrats to give the 2008 presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom he described as "a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate." He also said Republicans have "a very good chance" to hold onto the White House in next year's elections.

Mr. Rove also said he expects the president's approval rating to rise again, and that conditions in Iraq will improve as the U.S. military surge continues. He said he expects Democrats to be divided this fall in the battle over warrantless wiretapping, while the budget battle -- and a series of presidential vetoes -- should help Republicans gain an edge on spending restraint and taxes.

Mr. Rove established himself as the political genius behind the rise of George W. Bush and the brief period of united Republican rule. But he did it largely through highly divisive policies and campaign tactics, such as the attacks on Democratic rival John Kerry the 2004 campaign. That strategy appears finally to have backfired, as seen in the Republican loss of Congress in 2006, and Mr. Bush's low poll numbers.

Mr. Rove has advised Mr. Bush for more than a decade, working with him closely since Mr. Bush first announced he was running for governor of Texas in 1993 and serving as chief strategist in his presidential campaign in 2000. Before joining the White House, he was president of Karl Rove & Co., the Austin, Texas-based public affairs firm he founded. Mr. Rove first became involved in Republican politics in the 1970s.

Mr. Bush was expected to make a statement at about 11:35 a.m. Monday with his aide at the White House, before they fly to Texas to Mr. Bush's Crawford ranch retreat. Mr. Rove might also make comments to reporters flying on Air Force One with the president. A senior White House official said Mr. Rove plans to write a book, and perhaps teach politics.


"Obviously it's a big loss to us," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said. "He's a great colleague, a good friend, and a brilliant mind. He will be greatly missed, but we know he wouldn't be going if he wasn't sure this was the right time to be giving more to his family, his wife Darby and their son. He will continue to be one of the president's greatest friends."

Mr. Rove, 56 years old, has been embroiled in many White House controversies in Mr. Bush's second term, and faced investigation -- but wasn't indicted -- in the White House leak case that ensnared I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. He also has become a target of intense scrutiny in Congress over the firings of a number of U.S. attorneys. Mr. Rove and his political operatives in the White House had some involvement with the decision, but the extent of their role isn't clear, because the White House has asserted executive privilege in refusing to comply with congressional demands for documents and interviews, including with Mr. Rove. Mr. Rove's departure is likely to lessen the intensity of that constitutional clash, if only slightly.

Write to John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com



http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118698747711695773-lMyQjAxMDE3ODE2MzkxODM3Wj.html

patteeu
08-13-2007, 11:12 AM
Well it wasn't exactly 2 weeks but just a bump on a classic thread with todays news

And it's not exactly an indictment, but other than that, jAZ hit the nail on the head with this thread.

Chief Henry
08-13-2007, 05:38 PM
This thread has a long shelf life. Jaz and Chris Mathews must be the same people or at least related.

Mr. Kotter
04-07-2008, 11:29 AM
Bump....

With jAZ's new Andrew Sullivan predition thread, I figured it's time we relive these fond memories. ;)

CHIEF4EVER
04-07-2008, 11:38 AM
LMAO

SBK
04-07-2008, 01:06 PM
Is this thread in the hall of classics? It should be. LMAO

StcChief
04-07-2008, 03:32 PM
no keep it here... The Liberal media has already crucified him in their court of make up public opinion :rolleyes:

SBK
04-07-2008, 10:36 PM
Then it shall be, I nominate this nostradumbass esque prediction thread to elevation into the hall of classics.

Is there a 2nd? LMAO

Logical
04-07-2008, 10:38 PM
I 2nd the nomination.

Mr. Kotter
04-07-2008, 10:40 PM
I 2nd the nomination.

I THIRD the nomination....someone probably ought to forward this to a mod. :D

Logical
04-07-2008, 10:41 PM
You know what would really make this thread? If on 5-9-2008 Rove was actually indicted. Then we could see how jAZ would find a way to say I told you so.

jAZ
04-07-2008, 10:52 PM
I've never really understood the hall of classics. You move a thread there and no one ever sees it again. Keep it here (or in the lounge) and people can bump it.

I'd think that there should be a place (maybe even a part of the vBulletin itself) that allows for bookmarking (globally) classic or interesting threads.

Mr. Kotter
04-07-2008, 11:05 PM
You know what would really make this thread? If on 5-9-2008 Rove was actually indicted. Then we could see how jAZ would find a way to say I told you so.

Except for the "two weeks" part, eh? :rolleyes:

banyon
04-07-2008, 11:07 PM
Except for the "two weeks" part, eh? :rolleyes:

That would be "within 2 weeks" (on the calendar).

Logical
04-07-2008, 11:13 PM
Except for the "two weeks" part, eh? :rolleyes:
2 years vs 2 weeks, that was what would make the spin ironic. Have you lost your sense of humor?

Mr. Kotter
04-07-2008, 11:16 PM
2 years vs 2 weeks, that was what would make the spin ironic. Have you lost your sense of humor?

The eyeroll was over what would surely be his attempted spin, as you accurately portray.

Your post was on target....sorry for the confusion....hard to be precise, with the adrenaline rush of the Jayhawk championship....you know. ;)

Logical
04-07-2008, 11:29 PM
The eyeroll was over what would surely be his attempted spin, as you accurately portray.

Your post was on target....sorry for the confusion....hard to be precise, with the adrenaline rush of the Jayhawk championship....you know. ;)Hey that's right congrats.

jAZ
04-07-2008, 11:50 PM
You know what would really make this thread? If on 5-9-2008 Rove was actually indicted. Then we could see how jAZ would find a way to say I told you so.

FTR, I didn't predict or "tell" anyone anything. I just posted the Shuster report, just like 1,000 other threads on here of media reports.

Logical
04-08-2008, 12:19 AM
FTR, I didn't predict or "tell" anyone anything. I just posted the Shuster report, just like 1,000 other threads on here of media reports.True enough in the thread post. It was in support of it that you commited what I feel was a mistake.

jAZ
04-08-2008, 01:05 AM
True enough in the thread post. It was in support of it that you commited what I feel was a mistake.

While I'm not going to go back and re-read all of these posts, and I don't in any way expect you to do so either, I believe all I did in defense of that point was to point out that all I did was post Schuster's claims. Donger tried to pretend I made my own claims by neglecting to include "MSNBC: ..." at the front of the subject line and others decided to pile on.

Maybe there is something that I did that you can recall without much research (no need to invest much energy IMO).

ClevelandBronco
04-08-2008, 01:34 AM
While I'm not going to go back and re-read all of these posts, and I don't in any way expect you to do so either, I believe all I did in defense of that point was to point out that all I did was post Schuster's claims. Donger tried to pretend I made my own claims by neglecting to include "MSNBC: ..." at the front of the subject line and others decided to pile on.

Maybe there is something that I did that you can recall without much research (no need to invest much energy IMO).

We all know you by now. We can overlook your exuberance for this kind of prediction from other sources.

Still, it's fun revisiting it. It's not a "gotcha" moment by any means in my mind.

If anything, it's akin to pointing out that your political fly isn't zipped up.

Bootlegged
04-08-2008, 05:18 AM
:clap:

Chief Henry
04-08-2008, 07:14 AM
Jiz,

Did you know that we blew up the the buildings in NYC on 9-11.

patteeu
04-08-2008, 08:15 AM
I've never really understood the hall of classics. You move a thread there and no one ever sees it again. Keep it here (or in the lounge) and people can bump it.

I'd think that there should be a place (maybe even a part of the vBulletin itself) that allows for bookmarking (globally) classic or interesting threads.

Good points and a good idea.

jAZ
04-08-2008, 12:53 PM
Did you know that we blew up the the buildings in NYC on 9-11.

I knew you were a terrorist. :p

jAZ
04-08-2008, 01:04 PM
We all know you by now. We can overlook your exuberance for this kind of prediction from other sources.

Still, it's fun revisiting it. It's not a "gotcha" moment by any means in my mind.

If anything, it's akin to pointing out that your political fly isn't zipped up.

I give you a lot of credit for having a reasonable assessment of this thread. It's hall of classic worthy IMO as well, though for different reasons than some believe. :D

Logical
04-08-2008, 01:18 PM
Ooosie what? Oh, this is your window to delcare victory and try to tell everyone to go home?

Hell, aren't you jumping the gun a little, even on that front? It's day 13 and if calendars are the same today as they were yesterday, 2 weeks = 14 days.

I think your pre-mature victory dance technically shouldn't start until tomorrow. I'm sure there will be a great deal of satisfaction knowing it took 4 weeks instead of 3 weeks.

All of this aside, it's been reported by one (questionable) source that Rove is *all ready* been indicted, and that's it's not been made public because he's chosen to start cooperating with Fitzpatrick. I'm just saying it's worth watching this to see if that report was true.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014903.html

This is the post I think I recall you possibly overstating on your own that he would get indicted. Not much time spent because I knew it was early.

jAZ
04-08-2008, 01:55 PM
This is the post I think I recall you possibly overstating on your own that he would get indicted. Not much time spent because I knew it was early.

Fair enough WRT to this...

"I'm sure there will be a great deal of satisfaction knowing it took 4 weeks instead of 3 weeks."

Though I think my summary statement is reasonable...

"I'm just saying it's worth watching this to see if that report was true."

Aside from that, I believe it did turn out to be true that Fitzgerald allowed Rove to come back repeatedly (5 times?) to revise his statements and avoid indictment on perjury charges.

Logical
04-08-2008, 05:00 PM
Fair enough WRT to this...
"I'm sure there will be a great deal of satisfaction knowing it took 4 weeks instead of 3 weeks."
Though I think my summary statement is reasonable...
"I'm just saying it's worth watching this to see if that report was true."
Aside from that, I believe it did turn out to be true that Fitzgerald allowed Rove to come back repeatedly (5 times?) to revise his statements and avoid indictment on perjury charges.
Don't sweat it, more than anything I was just teasing you.

Mr. Kotter
04-10-2008, 02:32 PM
Quit playin' nice, Jim...at least with jAZ, man. :shake:

Chief Henry
04-11-2008, 07:10 AM
How many 2 weeks are we talking about here ?

patteeu
04-11-2008, 07:54 AM
How many 2 weeks are we talking about here ?

It's already done. Rove was indicted secretly as jAZ predicted, he served 2 years of secret jail time and is now on secret parole.

RINGLEADER
04-12-2008, 11:36 AM
Wasn't David Schuster the guy who got in trouble for saying the Clintons were pimping out Chelsea?

jAZ
04-12-2008, 12:02 PM
Wasn't David Schuster the guy who got in trouble for saying the Clintons were pimping out Chelsea?
Yep. Much ado about nothing, but the Clinton's were pissed at MSNBC and Matthews, so they went after Schuster.

Schuster's comment was only flawed in that Chelsea was an adult making the choice to campaign. Hillary is pimping Bill too. Hell, IIRC she was taking college student super-dels to lunch to lunch to try to win their vote.

She's lucky he didn't report that as "Win A Date With Chelsea". :p

Chief Henry
04-12-2008, 12:05 PM
Yep. Much ado about nothing, but the Clinton's were pissed at MSNBC and Matthews, so they went after Schuster.

Schuster's comment was only flawed in that Chelsea was an adult making the choice to campaign. Hillary is pimping Bill too. Hell, IIRC she was taking college student super-dels to lunch to lunch to try to win their vote.

She's lucky he didn't report that as "Win A Date With Chelsea". :p

ROFL

StcChief
04-14-2008, 11:11 AM
Yep. Much ado about nothing, but the Clinton's were pissed at MSNBC and Matthews, so they went after Schuster.

Schuster's comment was only flawed in that Chelsea was an adult making the choice to campaign. Hillary is pimping Bill too. Hell, IIRC she was taking college student super-dels to lunch to lunch to try to win their vote.

She's lucky he didn't report that as "Win A Date With Chelsea". :p
have they stopped beating her with the ugly stick ?ROFL

Chief Henry
04-14-2008, 12:55 PM
Will it happen today ?

Chief Henry
07-11-2008, 12:54 PM
Bump

Maybe Joe Wilson should go to Canada to see what 1,200,000 lbs of yellow cake looks like.

Lets see, aluminum tubing +yellow cake = future capabilities

I guess Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton and Hillary and Algore and the rest of the dems were right about Saddams capabilities after all :hail:

***SPRAYER
07-11-2008, 01:06 PM
Bump

Maybe Joe Wilson should go to Canada to see what 1,200,000 lbs of yellow cake looks like.

Lets see, aluminum tubing +yellow cake = future capabilities

I guess Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton and Hillary and Algore and the rest of the dems were right about Saddams capabilities after all :hail:

And Janet Reno.

whatsmynameagain
07-11-2008, 03:01 PM
rove is the bill romanowski of politics. still can't believe he called obama an elitist.Posted via Mobile Device

Chief Henry
07-11-2008, 03:07 PM
rove is the bill romanowski of politics. still can't believe he called obama an elitist.Posted via Mobile Device

Rove has kicked the dems ass for how many yrs. :deevee:

Adept Havelock
07-11-2008, 03:17 PM
Rove has kicked the dems ass for how many yrs. :deevee:

2000, 2002, and 2004. Four years, AFAICS. Even then, he couldn't get more than a one-two seat edge in the Senate. Not sure how that qualifies as an "ass-kicking", but YMMV.

Rove royally s*it his pants in '06. ;)

How's his approach doing so far this year? Judging by MS-01, LA-06, and IL-14, not so well.

So much for his "Permanent Majority". ROFL

Chief Henry
07-11-2008, 03:23 PM
2000, 2002, and 2004. Four years, AFAICS. Even then, he couldn't get more than a one-two seat edge in the Senate. Not sure how that qualifies as an "ass-kicking", but YMMV.

Rove royally s*it his pants in '06. ;)

How's his approach doing so far this year? Judging by MS-01, LA-06, and IL-14, not so well.

So much for his "Permanent Majority". ROFL


Rove kicked sand up Al Gores and John Kerrys butt .....there is no denying that. I can't recall a presidential election in 06 LMAO I don't seeing him on John McCains staff either.

Adept Havelock
07-11-2008, 03:39 PM
Rove kicked sand up Al Gores and John Kerrys butt .....there is no denying that. I can't recall a presidential election in 06 LMAO I don't seeing him on John McCains staff either.

If you think Rove only works in Presidential election years, and doesn't advise beyond that, you're considerably more ignorant of politics than your posts would generally suggest. Even more so, if you believe he's not informally advising the McCain team. I wasn't sure that was possible. Well done, indeed.

Now, what happened to that "GOP Permanent Majority" Rove was proclaiming in 2002 and 2004? ROFL

Right... the losses in IL-14, MS-01, and LA-06 this year were all part of the plan. Sacrificing +10 (at least) Red districts that have been Red since at least the 80's was part of his master plan. LMAO LMAO LMAO

dirk digler
07-11-2008, 03:44 PM
Jaz will never live this thread down

Adept Havelock
07-11-2008, 03:46 PM
Jaz will never live this thread down

Nor should he. :D

Chief Henry
07-11-2008, 03:47 PM
My post ignorant LMAO Only to the eyes of a liberal so called fence sitter like yourself.

Adept Havelock
07-11-2008, 03:54 PM
My post ignorant LMAO Only to the eyes of a liberal so called fence sitter like yourself.

LMAO

Socially Liberal, Financially Conservative. That doesn't fit your recxjake-esque simpleton's view of politics. Come to think of it, you'll find most things in this world don't fit that simple dichotomy.

Yes, ignorant was the best word to describe your post. I suppose "Naive", "Foolish", or "Absurd" would also have qualified. You're the one who implied Rove is only active in Presidential Election years and only advises the Presidential Campaign. That certainly qualifies as ignorant. No need to get sandyvag just because you made a dumb statement and had it pointed out. LMAO

Now, what happened to that "GOP Permanent Majority" Rove was proclaiming in '02-'04? ROFL ROFL ROFL

Chief Henry
07-11-2008, 07:52 PM
LMAO

Socially Liberal, Financially Conservative. That doesn't fit your recxjake-esque simpleton's view of politics. Come to think of it, you'll find most things in this world don't fit that simple dichotomy.

Yes, ignorant was the best word to describe your post. I suppose "Naive", "Foolish", or "Absurd" would also have qualified. You're the one who implied Rove is only active in Presidential Election years and only advises the Presidential Campaign. That certainly qualifies as ignorant. No need to get sandyvag just because you made a dumb statement and had it pointed out. LMAO

Now, what happened to that "GOP Permanent Majority" Rove was proclaiming in '02-'04? ROFL ROFL ROFL



:LOL: Its very common for the party holding the presidential office
in his 2nd term to loose to the opposite party. To say that Rove's advice
didn't help in 2006 is stretching it. The odds were against the republicans to hold the seat to begin with. History and the % were agaisnt them. But if you want to beleave your opinion, go ahead. I know that my thoughts and convictions dont take a back seat to anyones. Especially a fence sitting liberal like yourself. Your path to politics is easy and takes no thought
process at all.

Theres no need for you to get a sandy vag just because the sliver in your ass is hurting because of all your fence sitting. Only on your liberal fence
do my views look strange to you. But by all means keep callimg me your child like names. Your good at calling none fence sitters names.
Its your M-O. But flame away - its the one thing your good at.

Have a nice weekend. I'm going to the lake where I might get sand in my shorts, if I'm lucky.

patteeu
07-13-2008, 09:44 AM
2000, 2002, and 2004. Four years, AFAICS. Even then, he couldn't get more than a one-two seat edge in the Senate. Not sure how that qualifies as an "ass-kicking", but YMMV.

Rove royally s*it his pants in '06. ;)

How's his approach doing so far this year? Judging by MS-01, LA-06, and IL-14, not so well.

So much for his "Permanent Majority". ROFL

Rove was the President's political adviser, not the political adviser of every Republican running for Congress. And I'm not sure Rove (or any particular approach uniquely or distinctively attributable to Rove) had anything at all to do with those 3 special elections.

patteeu
07-13-2008, 09:47 AM
LMAO

Socially Liberal, Financially Conservative. That doesn't fit your recxjake-esque simpleton's view of politics. Come to think of it, you'll find most things in this world don't fit that simple dichotomy.

Yes, ignorant was the best word to describe your post. I suppose "Naive", "Foolish", or "Absurd" would also have qualified. You're the one who implied Rove is only active in Presidential Election years and only advises the Presidential Campaign. That certainly qualifies as ignorant. No need to get sandyvag just because you made a dumb statement and had it pointed out. LMAO

Now, what happened to that "GOP Permanent Majority" Rove was proclaiming in '02-'04? ROFL ROFL ROFL

I wouldn't call you a simpleton, but there's something wrong when a guy who seems to be attributing all national success and failure for an entire party to one guy is calling the poster who points out that that guy isn't omnipresent is a simpleton.

Adept Havelock
07-13-2008, 09:50 AM
Rove was the President's political adviser, not the political adviser of every Republican running for Congress. And I'm not sure Rove (or any particular approach uniquely or distinctively attributable to Rove) had anything at all to do with those 3 special elections.

Rove is an adviser to the national party and informally advises many other campaigns in addition to his role as the President's political adviser. The last three special-election campaigns were run using his tactics, AFAICS. He's also working as an informal adviser to the McCain campaign.

I wouldn't call you a simpleton, but there's something wrong when a guy who seems to be attributing all national success and failure for an entire party to one guy is calling the poster who points out that that guy isn't omnipresent is a simpleton.

There's a wide gap between "pointing out the guy isn't omnipresent" and claiming that he is only involved in Presidential elections and election years, as CH did. Furthermore, I don't believe I ever attributed all GOP success or failure to Rove. That's a rather radical misstatement of my position, AFAICS. However, if you want to ignore or deny his leading role in shaping the GOP campaign approach over the last few years, feel free.

However, it was unfair of me to attribute a "simpleton's" view of politics to CH. "Extreme Partisan" would have been less judgmental.

By the way, how did that "Permanant Majority" Rove was proclaiming work out? :p

patteeu
07-13-2008, 10:05 AM
Rove is an adviser to the national party and informally advises many other campaigns in addition to his role as the President's political adviser. The last three special-election campaigns were run using his tactics, AFAICS. He's also working as an informal adviser to the McCain campaign.



There's a wide gap between "pointing out the guy isn't omnipresent" and claiming that he is only involved in Presidential elections and election years, as CH did. Furthermore, I don't believe I ever attributed all GOP success or failure to Rove. That's a rather radical misstatement of my position, AFAICS. However, if you want to ignore or deny his leading role in shaping the GOP campaign approach over the last few years, feel free.

By the way, how did that "Permanant Majority" Rove was proclaiming work out? :p

I think you dramatically overstate Rove's scope of control/influence. You're not alone though. A lot of people think Rove is 10 feet tall.

Adept Havelock
07-13-2008, 10:06 AM
I think you dramatically overstate Rove's scope of control/influence to attribute much of the Republican success or failure in Congressional elections to him.

Fair enough. I think you are understating his role in the national party and the significance of his "playbook" in down-ticket elections. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

penchief
07-13-2008, 11:30 AM
Rove has kicked the dems ass for how many yrs. :deevee:

I'll agree that he has but he has done so by being unethical. Rove and Gutter are synonomous.

penchief
07-13-2008, 11:40 AM
There is no reason he should defy the subpeona. He is not above the country's laws. The only reason he's doing so is because he knows he will be asked questions that he will have to dodge in order to not incriminate himself.

The real question about Rove is why he is not already in jail. He lied four times to the Grand Jury but was allowed to go back a fifth time because an email was uncovered in which he sent Hadley outlininig his involvement in the Plame outing.

Why did the republican appointee Fitzgerald not charge him for lying the four other times?

Rove is probably the biggest scurge on American politics of the past 50 years. He doesn't believe in democracy or honest government. The only thing he believes in is doing everything it takes to win, legal or illegal, honest or dishonest. My guess is that if he were truly held accountable that he has broken the law on multiple occasions.

He's a throwback to the Nazi style fascism. He's the master of misinformation campaigns. He's probably the biggest political sleazeball alive today and it's a miracle that he's gotten away with everything he has up to this point.

JMO.

***SPRAYER
07-13-2008, 03:05 PM
Are the two weeks up yet?

Dallas Chief
07-13-2008, 03:38 PM
There is no reason he should defy the subpeona. He is not above the country's laws. The only reason he's doing so is because he knows he will be asked questions that he will have to dodge in order to not incriminate himself.

The real question about Rove is why he is not already in jail. He lied four times to the Grand Jury but was allowed to go back a fifth time because an email was uncovered in which he sent Hadley outlininig his involvement in the Plame outing.

Why did the republican appointee Fitzgerald not charge him for lying the four other times?

Rove is probably the biggest scurge on American politics of the past 50 years. He doesn't believe in democracy or honest government. The only thing he believes in is doing everything it takes to win, legal or illegal, honest or dishonest. My guess is that if he were truly held accountable that he has broken the law on multiple occasions.

He's a throwback to the Nazi style fascism. He's the master of misinformation campaigns. He's probably the biggest political sleazeball alive today and it's a miracle that he's gotten away with everything he has up to this point.

JMO.

Wow! I can't believe how much credit you are giving him. He is no different than your average Paul Begala/James Carville/Anne Coulter types. There just the same old mouthpieces, just different presidents...

penchief
07-13-2008, 07:16 PM
Wow! I can't believe how much credit you are giving him. He is no different than your average Paul Begala/James Carville/Anne Coulter types. There just the same old mouthpieces, just different presidents...

Those people have done nothing like what he has done. He operated within the basement of the White House. The Plame outing and the using of the Justice Department to target the political opposition is beyond partisanship. As I said before, it is no different than what the Nazi Party would do.

pikesome
07-13-2008, 07:20 PM
As I said before, it is no different than what the Nazi Party would do.

The ashes of millions of people just rolled over in their graves.

Perspective. Learn it. Use it.

Hyperbole must be used sparingly.