KRC Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Rove is the Boogey-Man. He has been and will be blamed for everything that liberals don't like (Ted Rall is currently comparing him to Osama Bin Laden). He's also a guy who knows how to win and get things done and since this "outing" didn't help him in any way, I have a tough time seeing why he would be the mystery man responsible. And there's no way reporters would go to jail to protect him. Karl Rove outing undercover CIA operatives because he doesn't like them is the Watergate sequel the mainstream media has been trying to make since, uh, Watergate. EDIT: Here's Valerie Plame. Link Probably more evidence that Darth Rove isn't the person who tried to destroy these people - they're still in pretty good shape. Let's also keep in mind that Lawrence O'Donnell is the person pushing this story. And he's basically a retard, so who cares? 375065[/snapback] I agree. Rove has been a target for a while. If they had dirt on him, they would be tripping over themselves to let it be known. As BiB mentioned, it is probably just some lower-level person with an ax to grind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I agree. Rove has been a target for a while. If they had dirt on him, they would be tripping over themselves to let it be known. As BiB mentioned, it is probably just some lower-level person with an ax to grind. 375072[/snapback] But it was Novak who said the sources were two senior Administration officials. Of course "senior official" is up for interpretation, but it never sounded like a lower-level person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 But it was Novak who said the sources were two senior Administration officials.Of course "senior official" is up for interpretation, but it never sounded like a lower-level person. 375080[/snapback] Anyone wondering, this is the acticle that started it all: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertn...n20030714.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 But it was Novak who said the sources were two senior Administration officials.Of course "senior official" is up for interpretation, but it never sounded like a lower-level person. 375080[/snapback] If the staffer said "My boss said this," then Novak could use the "Senior Officials" moniker to make things sound more official and still be accurate according to his source. What sounds better in a story: 1) a senior official says this... 2) the staffer of a senior official said that the senior official said this... Honestly, I have not followed this story too closely, so I cannot express an opinion on any impressions I have received from the reporting. I am just commenting on a possibility. With the hard-on that the media and some Dems have for Rove, it is tough to imagine that he is the source and that people at Time, et. al are willing to hide it. Novak, possibly, but other media outlets I doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I don't know that it is chargeable as treason, but it is a criminal offense. I have to wonder why the reporters in question decided to become martyrs. Surely they must have known things would come down to a contempt of court. The whole thing is not that important in the grand scheme of things, but rules are rules. 374487[/snapback] I think the treason angle comes from the first Bush: Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors. Which was taken from a speech he gave in 1999. Linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 It's politics, which we ALL ha...dislike (you shouldn't hate). There's more tactics and strategy devoted to it than war. There's no gain, only potential loss from this politically. No one even cares that it's a non-issue. It has been made into one by TIME and friends. Like I said, doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Rush brought up a good point about this today. 374986[/snapback] Absolutely classic!!! You had me at Rush, you had me at Rush... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I love it! OF COURSE it couldn't be Rove. The unscrupulous Liberal media would have outed him long ago! Karl would never do anything so under-handed! Of couse, if they had, do you think they may not be the first to get official leads in the future? Is it so hard to believe that the media was actually trying to protect their source on principal in this case? We'll have to wait and see... Do you think the souce will be made public at some point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Is it so hard to believe that the media was actually trying to protect their source on principal in this case? 375346[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 This reminds me of the "Newsweek F---ed America!" thread. Where's the outrage here? If it is Rove, will one of you Compassionate Conservatives start the "Karl Rove F---ed America!" thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 375348[/snapback] Well, how about "out of fear of not getting another lead, ever" instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Shows your bias when you put down that I heard it on Rush. Just think about it. The media went so far as to make up a fake memo to try to get Bush out of office. Do you think for a second that if they had proof that Rove did it they wouldn't have broadcast it 24/7? Plame was outed BEFORE the election. From some editorials I have read it was sort of common knowledge that she was CIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Shows your bias when you put down that I heard it on Rush. Just think about it. The media went so far as to make up a fake memo to try to get Bush out of office. Do you think for a second that if they had proof that Rove did it they wouldn't have broadcast it 24/7? Plame was outed BEFORE the election. From some editorials I have read it was sort of common knowledge that she was CIA. 375352[/snapback] WWRD? 1. Spin, spin, spin 2. Pop some pills 3. Eat half a dozen Big Macs 4. Divorce his 5th wife for the second time 5. Spin some more 6. Pop some more pills 7. Get on the radio and preach family values, intolerance of drug use, and the evils of Liberalism to YOU and yours Lap it up, Rush is obviously preaching to the choir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Well, how about "out of fear of not getting another lead, ever" instead? 375350[/snapback] Yeah, right, be the reporter who takes down Karl Rove and you won't have to worry about getting new leads. Woodward and Bernstein are still living off their Watergate fame. As for "Karl Rove f-d America!" - sure, why not? If he did it, it's indefensible. No one actually admires Karl Rove. You liberals might hate him and gnash your teeth at the very thought of him, but he's not as important to people on the conservative side. He's a big blip on your radar and just a political strategist to us. (Reminds me of Walter Cronkite telling Larry King he thought Bin Ladin's pre-election recording may have been arranged for by Karl Rove. Makes perfect sense to a liberal idiot, and exactly no one else.) Unfortunately, there's no evidence that it was Rove except for Larry O'Donnell foaming at the mouth and the fact that Rove was interviewed by one of the reporters in all the hot water right now. Interviewed - which most likely means it was the reporter who requested the dialogue. And anyway, no one died. Valerie Plame still seems to be living the good life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 From some editorials I have read it was sort of common knowledge that she was CIA. 375352[/snapback] From the link I provided, it seems she's currently partying with Robert deNiro. According to Vanity Fair, the photo was taken at the magazine's annual dinner for the Tribeca Film Festival, and Plame's and Wilson's fellow guests included Robert deNiro, Nicole Kidman, Barry Diller, Willem Dafoe, John McEnroe, and many others. Plame's and Wilson's photo appears below a shot of David Bowie and Sean "P. Diddy" Combs. The Times also cites friends who say the privacy-protecting Plame and ambassador Wilson "have had a low-key social life." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Yeah, right, be the reporter who takes down Karl Rove and you won't have to worry about getting new leads. Woodward and Bernstein are still living off their Watergate fame. 375361[/snapback] Am I missing something, or didn't W&B make their bones by protecting their source's name 'til the end? They denied that it was Felt for several hours after the VF article leaked, until they confirmed that he did approve release of his name. If you promise anonymity as a reporter and don't honor it, even if that means you spend time in the clink, you pack up your things at your desk and turn in your reporter's notebook at the door. Your fellow reporters will hate you for doing in their newspaper and craft, and no one will talk to you again. Seriously, man, you don't need to go to J-school to know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 From the link I provided, it seems she's currently partying with Robert deNiro. 375364[/snapback] Let the character assassination of Valerie Plame begin.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Am I missing something, or didn't W&B make their bones by protecting their source's name 'til the end? They denied that it was Felt for several hours after the VF article leaked, until they confirmed that he did approve release of his name. If you promise anonymity as a reporter and don't honor it, even if that means you spend time in the clink, you pack up your things at your desk and turn in your reporter's notebook at the door. Your fellow reporters will hate you for doing in their newspaper and craft, and no one will talk to you again. Seriously, man, you don't need to go to J-school to know that. 375455[/snapback] I don't think you need to go to "J-school" for anything, but that's another topic.... This is a different situation than Watergate and in order to take down Karl Rove they'd have to reveal him as their source. W&B are 'heroes' for taking down Nixon, not upholding their principles. There's enough foam-at-the-mouth hatred of KR on the left that whoever takes him out is going to be in good shape no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 This reminds me of the "Newsweek F---ed America!" thread. Where's the outrage here? If it is Rove, will one of you Compassionate Conservatives start the "Karl Rove F---ed America!" thread? 375349[/snapback] No, because even if it were him, he didn't. I can't believe that you are so far gone as to compare the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I can't believe that you are so far gone as to compare the two. 375462[/snapback] Umm...have you read his posts in the past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts