 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:25 pm Post subject: Howard Kurtz: "Frog-Marching Time for Rove?" |
 |
|
Interesting Howard Kurtz piece today, and he seems to be just a bit addle-headed by the euphoria of an apparent Rove/Bush-gotcha. Someone should remind Howard that the concept of "Frog-marching" involves handcuffs, a scenario (that even Kurtz acknowledges in the article) is looking more and more remote.
However, he is correct in his assessment of the political fallout and, IMHO, this does not bode well in the near-term for President Bush's upcoming epic battle for the heart and soul of the Supreme Court. THAT is (and must be) the highest priority of this administration, even, to an extent, the WOT. (emphasis mine)
| Quote: | Frog-Marching Time for Rove?
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 12, 2005; 7:57 AM
The liberal blogosphere is aflame with animosity toward Karl Rove, now that he's been sucked deeper into the Plame probe.
Some folks out there think he should just be thrown in the jail cell next to Judy Miller's, no indictment or trial necessary.
To some on the left, Rove is the epitome of all they despise about the administration. He is Bush's brain, pulling the strings from behind the scenes, injecting politics into every conceivable decision. Rove further infuriated his critics a couple of weeks ago when he seemed to use the 9/11 tragedy to score political points, saying Republicans wanted to wage war and liberals wanted to offer the terrorists therapy.
Add the fact that this controversy is about the runup to the Iraq war and an apparent White House effort to discredit a prominent Bush critic, Joe Wilson, and you have an incendiary mixture. (It was Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, who once declared that "fun to see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs.") And this dovetails nicely with the conviction that the press did a lousy job on WMD before the war and has been too soft on Karl & Co. ever since.
There are two issues here, it seems to me. Legally, what Rove said to Matt Cooper on "double super secret background" (according to this Mike Isikoff piece) may or may not have violated the law against identifying intelligence agents. There are questions about whether Rove knew that Plame was undercover, whether he was "knowingly" outing her, and so forth.
But politically, this is a bombshell. Rove, who has insisted he did not leak Plame's name, had something to do with this effort, even if he didn't "name" her. ( The defense: It all depends on the meaning of the word "leak?") He was attempting to undercut Wilson when he told Cooper that wifey had helped set up Wilson's fact-finding trip to Niger (where Wilson didn't find the facts the administration wanted on Saddam seeking uranium) and that the uranium business could still be true (it wasn't). And didn't the White House promise to fire anyone involved in the leak?
Washington Post - cont'd |
Carl Rove, rightfully or not, is now ammo for the left to use as effectively as their dark hearts can envisage and manipulate.
IMHO, Carl Rove should be removed post-haste to protect the integrity of this Administration. It's the astute political move and the correct one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jwb7605
Rear Admiral
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 690
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: Howard Kurtz: "Frog-Marching Time for Rove?" |
|
|
| Me#1You#10 wrote: | <SNIP>
However, he is correct in his assessment of the political fallout and, IMHO, this does not bode well in the near-term for President Bush's upcoming epic battle for the heart and soul of the Supreme Court. THAT is (and must be) the highest priority of this administration, even, to an extent, the WOT. (emphasis mine)
<SNIP>
Carl Rove, rightfully or not, is now ammo for the left to use as effectively as their dark hearts can envisage and manipulate.
IMHO, Carl Rove should be removed post-haste to protect the integrity of this Administration. It's the astute political move and the correct one. |
I fail to see the connection between a Supreme Court nominee and any "scandal" involving Carl Rove.
I admit, however, that others DO see a connection.
Can somebody enlighten me? I'm serious here. I flat out just don't get the association. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:51 pm Post subject: Re: Howard Kurtz: "Frog-Marching Time for Rove?" |
|
|
| jwb7605 wrote: |
I fail to see the connection between a Supreme Court nominee and any "scandal" involving Carl Rove.
I admit, however, that others DO see a connection.
Can somebody enlighten me? I'm serious here. I flat out just don't get the association. |
It's pure politics jwb, and in that realm President Bush and Carl Rove are connected at the hip. That reality (or even perception if you will) needs to be acknowledged and acted upon. With just the revelations that have been acknowledged thus far, Carl Rove has become a heavy political liability (read about the scorching of McClellan by the media in the most recent WH press gathering - and THAT'S from Newsmax for gosh sakes). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | IMHO, Carl Rove should be removed post-haste to protect the integrity of this Administration. It's the astute political move and the correct one. |
NO WAY!!
You're being stampeded by the usual media frenzy. In the end the facts can be disclosed and the Left will again have egg all over their face.
Until the grand jury proceeding is over, no one can talk.
President Bush will not sacrifice Rove.
In the crazy press conference yesterday, the Press Secretary said he LOOKED FORWARD to discussing it but he can't at this time.
This article by Kurtz is just more hype and a further attempt to fuzzy
the real facts. Joe Wilson lied and Kurtz is still saying that his report was true.
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is all garbage. Who is the NYT protecting, it isn't Karl Rove. What if it is Joe Wilson who told them all about his own Mrs.??
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The President said IF anyone in the administration broke the law, that person would be dismissed. Rove did not break the law and the President will not fire him. This all is going to backfire on the Media when the FACTS
come out of the grand jury.
Read this article from yesterday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2305-2005Jan11
~SNIP~
| Quote: | Journalists are being threatened with jail for not testifying who gave them information about Plame -- even journalists who did not write about Plame but only talked with sources about her. Ironically, the special prosecutor has pursued this case with characteristic zeal after major publications editorialized that a full investigation and prosecution of the government source was necessary. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution even claimed that the allegations came "perilously close to treason."
It's time for a timeout on a misguided and mechanical investigation in which there is serious doubt that a crime was even committed. Federal courts have stated that a reporter should not be subpoenaed when the testimony sought is remote from criminal conduct or when there is no compelling "government interest," i.e., no crime. As two people who drafted and negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, we can tell you: The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct.
When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.
At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."
The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative measures" were being taken to protect her cover.
There are ways of perceiving whether the government was actually taking the required necessary affirmative measures to conceal its relationship with Plame. We can look, for example, at how the CIA reacted when Novak informed the press office that he was going to publish her name. Did the general counsel call to threaten prosecution, as we know has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances? No. Did then-Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as we know is done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication? No. Did some high-ranking government official ask to visit Novak or the president of his newspaper syndicate to talk him out of publishing -- another common strategy to prevent a story? No.
Novak has written that the CIA person designated to talk with him replied that although Plame was probably not getting another foreign assignment, exposure "might cause difficulties if she were to travel abroad." He certainly never told Novak that Plame would be endangered. Such a meager response falls far legally shy of "affirmative measures."
There is even more telling CIA conduct about Plame's status. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq," when the agency asked Plame's husband to take on the Niger assignment, he did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement, a requirement for just about anybody else doing work for an intelligence agency. This omission opened the door for Wilson to write an op-ed piece for the New York Times describing his Niger trip. Did it not occur to our super sleuths of spycraft that a nationally distributed piece about the incendiary topic of weapons of mass destruction -- which happens to be Wilson's wife's expertise -- could result in her involvement being raised?.... |
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blue9t3
Admiral
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just happened to be listening to Hannity this morning, he went over what the White House said and I didnt hear the word (fire) if any (laws) were broken! Please correct me if Im wrong 
_________________
MOPAR-BUYER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the New York Times today, this reporter said:
| Quote: | | Mr. McClellan and Mr. Bush have both made clear that leaking Ms. Plame's identity would be considered a firing offense by the White House. Mr. Bush was asked about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name. "Yes," he replied, on June 10, 2004. |
But Rove did not leak the NAME, he didn't even know her name.
Of course the NYT is steadfastly covering up the real leaker.
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looks more and more like this DID originate with Judith Miller
who then fed it to other journalists to ask Rove to confirm it.
Cooper wanted to pin Rove with the leak. All this time he has been
letting it be assumed that Rove gave him Plame's name.
Is this the Frame with Plame's Name Game???
Byron York talked to Rove's attorney today:
| Quote: | July 12, 2005, 4:26 p.m.
Lawyer: Cooper “Burned” Karl Rove
Rove’s attorney talks to NRO.
The lawyer for top White House adviser Karl Rove says that Time reporter Matthew Cooper "burned" Rove after a conversation between the two men concerning former ambassador Joseph Wilson's fact-finding mission to Niger and the role Wilson's wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, played in arranging that trip. Nevertheless, attorney Robert Luskin says Rove long ago gave his permission for all reporters, including Cooper, to tell prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about their conversations with Rove.
In an interview with National Review Online, Luskin compared the contents of a July 11, 2003, internal Time e-mail written by Cooper with the wording of a story Cooper co-wrote a few days later. "By any definition, he burned Karl Rove," Luskin said of Cooper. "If you read what Karl said to him and read how Cooper characterizes it in the article, he really spins it in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to them to report negative information about Plame."
First the e-mail. According to a report in Newsweek, Cooper's e-mail to Time Washington bureau chief Michael Duffy said, "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation..." Cooper said that Rove had warned him away from getting "too far out on Wilson," and then passed on Rove's statement that neither Vice President Dick Cheney nor CIA Director George Tenet had picked Wilson for the trip; "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." Finally — all of this is according to the Newsweek report — Cooper's e-mail said that "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly that there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger..."
A few days after sending the e-mail, Cooper co-wrote an article headlined "A War on Wilson?" that appeared on Time's website. The story began, "Has the Bush administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Perhaps."
The story continued:
Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.
Plame's role in Wilson's assignment was later confirmed by a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation.
Luskin told NRO that the circumstances of Rove's conversation with Cooper undercut Time's suggestion of a White House "war on Wilson." According to Luskin, Cooper originally called Rove — not the other way around — and said he was working on a story on welfare reform. After some conversation about that issue, Luskin said, Cooper changed the subject to the weapons of mass destruction issue, and that was when the two had the brief talk that became the subject of so much legal wrangling. According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are "indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out."
"Look at the Cooper e-mail," Luskin continues. "Karl speaks to him on double super secret background...I don't think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson's wife."
Nor, says Luskin, was Rove trying to "out" a covert CIA agent or "smear" her husband. "What Karl was trying to do, in a very short conversation initiated by Cooper on another subject, was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false." Luskin points out that on the evening of July 11, 2003, just hours after the Rove-Cooper conversation, then-CIA Director George Tenet released a statement that undermined some of Wilson's public assertions about his report. "Karl knew that that [Tenet] statement was in gestation," says Luskin. "I think a fair reading of the e-mail was that he was trying to warn Cooper off from going out on a limb on [Wilson's] allegations."
Luskin also shed light on the waiver that Rove signed releasing Cooper from any confidentiality agreement about the conversation. Luskin says Rove originally signed a waiver in December 2003 or in January 2004 (Luskin did not remember the exact date). The waiver, Luskin continues, was written by the office of special prosecutor Fitzgerald, and Rove signed it without making any changes — with the understanding that it applied to anyone with whom he had discussed the Wilson/Plame matter. "It was everyone's expectation that the waiver would be as broad as it could be," Luskin says.
Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller have expressed concerns that such waivers (top Cheney aide Lewis Libby also signed one) might have been coerced and thus might not have represented Rove's true feelings. Yet from the end of 2003 or beginning of 2004, until last Wednesday, Luskin says, Rove had no idea that there might be any problem with the waiver.
It was not until that Wednesday, the day Cooper was to appear in court, that that changed. "Cooper's lawyer called us and said, "Can you confirm that the waiver encompasses Cooper?" Luskin recalls. "I was amazed. He's a lawyer. It's not rocket science. [The waiver] says 'any person.' It's that broad. So I said, 'Look, I understand that you want reassurances. If Fitzgerald would like Karl to provide you with some other assurances, we will.'" Luskin says he got in touch with the prosecutor — "Rule number one is cooperate with Fitzgerald, and there is no rule number two," Luskin says — and asked what to do. According to Luskin, Fitzgerald said to go ahead, and Luskin called Cooper's lawyer back. "I said that I can reaffirm that the waiver that Karl signed applied to any conversations that Karl and Cooper had," Luskin says. After that — which represented no change from the situation that had existed for 18 months — Cooper made a dramatic public announcement and agreed to testify.
A few other notes: Luskin declined to say how Rove knew that Plame "apparently" (to use Cooper's word) worked at the CIA. But Luskin told NRO that Rove is not hiding behind the defense that he did not identify Wilson's wife because he did not specifically use her name. Asked if that argument was too legalistic, Luskin said, "I agree with you. I think it's a detail."
Luskin also addressed the question of whether Rove is a "subject" of the investigation. Luskin says Fitzgerald has told Rove he is not a "target" of the investigation, but, according to Luskin, Fitzgerald has also made it clear that virtually anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation, including Rove, is considered a "subject" of the probe. "'Target' is something we all understand, a very alarming term," Luskin says. On the other hand, Fitzgerald "has indicated to us that he takes a very broad view of what a subject is."
Finally, Luskin conceded that Rove is legally free to publicly discuss his actions, including his grand-jury testimony. Rove has not spoken publicly, Luskin says, because Fitzgerald specifically asked him not to. |
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is really getting sweet!!
The Poker Player remaining silent, letting the Media and Libs play to the extreme because he knows how the game will end.The truth will be told after the media hangs itself??? I HOPE!
| Quote: | THE PASSIVE KARL ROVE AND THE ACTIVE JUDITH MILLER
[John Podhoretz]
Stick with me--this is a long post.
Byron York has a vital detail in his must-read piece right now on the main part of the NRO website. Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, tells Byron that Time's Matt Cooper called Rove to talk about something else and that only secondarily did the subject of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame come up.
This is important, because it suggests Rove wasn't "retailing" the information about Wilson and Plame -- wasn't reporter-shopping to drop a dirty dime on those involved -- but was rather a passive source, answering a phone call at the reporter's behest and presumably changing topics to the sexier one at issue at the reporter's behest as well.
Since Rove-centric psychos can devise any scenario whereby he manipulates people into doing everything he wants, I doubt this detail will change any minds in Daily Kos-ville. But it offers an important and nagging clue to the continuing antics of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. What do I mean?
It means that clearly information was circulating around Washington about the identity of Wilson's CIA operative wife Valerie Plame. The presumption has thus far been in most quarters that the only people who could have known about this were administration officials.
But what if that's not right? What if the original source for the "Wilson got the job from his CIA wife" was, in fact, a reporter? After all, we know that the vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, has testified he learned of Plame's identity from a journalist.
Wilson had gotten very cozy with a couple of them -- Walter Pincus of the Washington Post and Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times among them. What if he spilled the beans to enhance his own standing in the story somehow, to bolster his supposed findings?
What if -- and here's where it gets really interesting -- what if the real object of interest where Fitzgerald's investigation is concerned is now none other than the jailed Judith Miller of the New York Times? What if she let it all slip and in the giant game of telephone around the nation's capital, Miller was the original source of the "Plame's in the CIA" info? What if Fitzgerald needs her notes to discern whether Miller knew or didn't know of Plame's supposedly covert status?
Fitzgerald already has a major bone to pick with Miller. He believes she materially and dangerously impeded his investigation into a terrorist-financing scheme run by the Holy Land Foundation.
When Miller found out that Fitzgerald was on the verge of indicting Holy Land, she called the Foundation for comment -- and right after her call Fitzgerald believes the Foundation may have commenced a shredding party that ensured prosecutors would find little paperwork to go on when they raided the Holy Land offices.
As the Washington Post put it, "On Dec. 3, 2001, Times reporter Judith Miller telephoned officials with the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Texas-based charity accused of being a front for Palestinian terrorists, and asked for a comment about what she said was the government's probable crackdown on the group. U.S. officials said this conversation and Miller's article on the subject in the Times on Dec. 4 increased the likelihood that the foundation destroyed or hid records before a hastily organized raid by agents that day."
Fitzgerald sought her phone records on that occasion to uncover the source of a potential leak in his own office and was blocked by a liberal New York judge named Robert Sweet. Miller didn't get so lucky this time. Fitzgerald thinks Miller has a loose tongue, and for good reason. It's possible he's trying to figure out what other mischief her loose tongue might have caused.
Chew on that for a while. I'm exhausted.
Posted at 05:55 PM |
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_10_corner-archive.asp#069334
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)
Last edited by shawa on Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
manelly
PO3
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 294
Location: AZ
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shawa wrote: | This is really getting sweet!!
The Poker Player remaining silent, letting the Media and Libs play to the extreme because he knows how the game will end.The truth will be told after the media hangs itself??? I HOPE! |
Me thinks this too....this will be sweeeet  umm I hope 
_________________
Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day.
- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GenrXr
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 1720
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I feel for America today. Our country is at war and our media gets excited over a dumb broad who filed papers at the CIA getting outed as having CIA printed on her look who I am business card. The fact noone has yet mentioned is that this woman is a 5th avenue type who cannot stand not to be mentioned. 007 she is not. Rove and Bush are aware and playing it full circle, yet it saddens me that our media is beyond any redeemable quality. They are nothing more then what the National Enquirer was when I was 5 and they had interviews with aliens on a daily basis.
We have soldiers dying in God-less country and our country discusses crap like this?
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GenrXr said
| Quote: | | They are nothing more then what the National Enquirer was when I was 5 and they had interviews with aliens on a daily basis. |
They are far more dangerous than the Enquirer who just for $$$$$ publish crazy stories and gossip.
The MSM does it for their AGENDA and are much more harmful to our country!!
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
When the story first broke, the Media was slanting it to the idea that Rove INITIATED a mission to 'out' Plame in order to put the hurt on Wilson. That Rove was busy making calls TO reporters to spread the word.
That just didn't add up to me. Rove is far too smart to do such an inane thing.
Now, with Matt Cooper's email made public, we find out that it was just the REVERSE, reporters were calling Rove. Cooper called him to ask him about 'welfare reform' (??????) then switched the subject to Wilson.
Follow what Podhoretz is saying in the above article. The special prosecutor has a bead on something, so I'm looking at the trail of witnesses he has called and making some assumptions just to see where he is going.
First, he questions Administration officials (to find out who talked to Novak??) since he is the one who published Plame's identity. Rove says yes, he talked to Novak (maybe says that Novak called him on a different matter but the subject of Wilson came up). We know that Novak said that the subject of Wilson's wife just happened to come up.
I assume that Rove gave the prosecutor the names of reporters he talked to.
I assume that Novak testified voluntarily, since no subpoena was issued, and he is cooperating with the prosecutor. I assume that he was questioned as where he got onto Wilson's wife. What if he testified that Judith Miller gave him a tip and suggested he call Rove?
We know that Tim Russert was asked to testify. I assume that is because he was another reporter that Rove spoke to. What if he testified that Judith Miller gave him a tip and suggested he call Rove?
We know that Matt Cooper was forced to testify under threat of jailtime.
There is no way he was agonizingly protecting Rove as his source.
What if, when he finally testified, he said Judith Miller gave him a tip and suggested he call Rove?
Judith Miller refuses to testify and the New York Times refuses to turn over her notes to the prosecutor. WHY???
Looks pretty obvious to me. The NYT set up the deal with Miller to pass the tip to other key reporters in order to keep their hands clean.
WE KNOW HOW THE NYT OPERATES!!! They will do anything to discredit President Bush!!!
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BuffaloJack
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1637
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
This sounds like the press had an agenda and maneuvered Rove into answering a question where there are no right answers, like the famous "Are you still beating your wife?"
We all know how these yellow journalists work these opportuities.
We also know how much the Leftists love to put Mr. Bush's administration in a bad light.
While the Leftists keep Mr. Rove's predicament in the forefront, it is distracting our focus on America's real problem of the War on Terrorists.
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
