Ghost of BiB Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 I don't think Rove is known by many outside of those who follow politics,and most importantly, I don't think Rove is going down for this. I think he covered his tracks well enough. Just good politics. Why tell anyone that "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game" if it is not important in terms of a political strategy. in terms of legal strategy, that is a different ballgame, but I think it is looking like he was crafty enough not to have anything traced back to him in terms of law. Rove is the best hardball politician in America, bar none. 380207[/snapback] And, once again, why make a point out of a non-issue?
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 I don't think Rove is known by many outside of those who follow politics,and most importantly, I don't think Rove is going down for this. I think he covered his tracks well enough. Just good politics. Why tell anyone that "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game" if it is not important in terms of a political strategy. in terms of legal strategy, that is a different ballgame, but I think it is looking like he was crafty enough not to have anything traced back to him in terms of law. Rove is the best hardball politician in America, bar none. 380207[/snapback] I can't see him telling anyone "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game." I can see him saying Wilson only got the job because of his wife, who apparently abused her power to get him to Niger, but I don't see him taking on a CIA agent and expecting to come out looking good. Not before an election anyway. If KR is the best hardball "figure" in America (I don't say politician because he doesn't run for office), you'd think he'd be smart enough to know what the media can do when they smell blood. The NYT whipped up a brief frenzy over missing explosives in the week leading up to the election last November. Turns out the missing explosives may have been disposed of and would have only accounted for less than 1% of the total amount of Iraqi weapons that had been secured and/or destroyed since the war began but they made it an issue anyway (I believe their second front page headline was "Missing Weapons become Campaign Issue"). Imagine if they'd have this to work with a year ago. It just doesn't add up.
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 And, once again, why make a point out of a non-issue? 380214[/snapback] Well Clinton survived his Senate trial. I think Rove will survive this too, but these special prosecutors don't just go away. This story will be with us for some time. Like it or not.
Ghost of BiB Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Well Clinton survived his Senate trial. I thinkRove will survive this too, but these special prosecutors don't just go away. This story will be with us for some time. Like it or not. 380219[/snapback] It's still not a story.
Thurman's Helmet Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 How come Democrats are Innocent until proven guilty and Republicans are guilty until driven out of town without benefit of trial or ever actually preventing evidence of a crime????????
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 It's still not a story. 380233[/snapback] You must have a high threshold for "story."
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 How come Democrats are Innocent until proven guilty and Republicans are guilty until driven out of town without benefit of trial or ever actually preventing evidence of a crime???????? 380239[/snapback] Which Republican are you talking about?
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Republicans are guilty until driven out of town without benefit of trial or ever actually preventing evidence of a crime???????? 380239[/snapback] OR did I miss a joke?
Ghost of BiB Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 You must have a high threshold for "story." 380241[/snapback] Yeah, I do. Sue me. I focus on the important.
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Yeah, I do. Sue me. I focus on the important. 380256[/snapback] nobody gets sued unless they are "preventing evidence of a crime"
Ghost of BiB Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 nobody gets sued unless they are "preventing evidence of a crime" 380259[/snapback] My neighbor is coming over to split a bottle of wine. She's a libertard. I'll certainly ask all of these questions tonight.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Well, everyone is doing a good job arguing semantics here. Was she a covert agent? Did he name her by name? Was her husband dirty? The real issue is that the White House stated a long time ago that Rove was not involved at all and that if the person who leaked the information is in the administration, that that person would be fired! It seems VERY VERY CLEAR that Rove was involved and talked to the reporter about Wilson's wife being in CIA. This seems to be enough to be fired per the White House statement. The rest is just spin...ummm...she wasn't a covert agent. Ummmmm...he didn't name her by name, etc. Ummmm...if we knew Rove would be caught, we would never have said that the person would be fired.
Ghost of BiB Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Well, everyone is doing a good job arguing semantics here. Was she a covert agent? Did he name her by name? Was her husband dirty? The real issue is that the White House stated a long time ago that Rove was not involved at all and that if the person who leaked the information is in the administration, that that person would be fired! It seems VERY VERY CLEAR that Rove was involved and talked to the reporter about Wilson's wife being in CIA. This seems to be enough to be fired per the White House statement. The rest is just spin...ummm...she wasn't a covert agent. Ummmmm...he didn't name her by name, etc. Ummmm...if we knew Rove would be caught, we would never have said that the person would be fired. 380262[/snapback] I'm getting laid in about an hour. What do I care?
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 I'm getting laid in about an hour. What do I care? 380267[/snapback] Just make sure that your boyfriend wears a condom.
EC-Bills Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 I'm getting laid in about an hour. What do I care? 380267[/snapback] Wine's a great leg spreader ...
bobblehead Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 My neighbor is coming over to split a bottle of wine. She's a libertard. I'll certainly ask all of these questions tonight. 380261[/snapback] I'm getting laid in about an hour. What do I care? If you want both of these statements tonight, you might want to drop the questions bit.
bobblehead Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Well, everyone is doing a good job arguing semantics here. Was she a covert agent? Did he name her by name? Was her husband dirty? The real issue is that the White House stated a long time ago that Rove was not involved at all and that if the person who leaked the information is in the administration, that that person would be fired! It seems VERY VERY CLEAR that Rove was involved and talked to the reporter about Wilson's wife being in CIA. This seems to be enough to be fired per the White House statement. The rest is just spin...ummm...she wasn't a covert agent. Ummmmm...he didn't name her by name, etc. Ummmm...if we knew Rove would be caught, we would never have said that the person would be fired. 380262[/snapback] Thanks for that post. The 'base' can cover Rove all they want ( as evidenced by some of the posts here) and they have a right to. Rove won them two elections, I guess he gets a lifetime pass for that. Maybe he should. Sure, I get it. Plame was "uncovered" years ago, she was a desk jockey, Wilson may have been incompetent, Rove may not have implicated her directly, and yes, we only know part of the story. I know there are some deep turf wars involving the State Dept, the FBI, the CIA and the White House now. I know that Chalabi's home was raided in Iraq earlier over one of these 'turf wars', I get that too. But the real problem here is with integrity, honesty and security, although at the end of the day, that means nothing to the extreme wings of both parties. Regardless of what Rove actually said or not said, he got into this situation in the first place. He had a beef with someone so he went after his wife, the far-right can defend him all they want (and they have reasons to) but nothing says 'low-life kitty' more than a guy going after an enemy's wife. Ok, this woman may or may not have had the most sensitive job at the CIA, but she worked for the CIA nonetheless. For Rove to be working for the very people we are trusting to take care of business overseas and to protect us, f-ing with the CIA sure makes me question how sincere he really is about protecting us. I really have to wonder if politics does come before security with the White House.
SilverNRed Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Well, everyone is doing a good job arguing semantics here. Was she a covert agent? Did he name her by name? Was her husband dirty? The real issue is that the White House stated a long time ago that Rove was not involved at all and that if the person who leaked the information is in the administration, that that person would be fired! It seems VERY VERY CLEAR that Rove was involved and talked to the reporter about Wilson's wife being in CIA. This seems to be enough to be fired per the White House statement. The rest is just spin...ummm...she wasn't a covert agent. Ummmmm...he didn't name her by name, etc. Ummmm...if we knew Rove would be caught, we would never have said that the person would be fired. 380262[/snapback] The real issue is that political figures said one thing and are now going to do another? Yeah, there's a new one..........
erynthered Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Just make sure that your boyfriend wears a condom. 380269[/snapback] You're an ass hole.
Recommended Posts