Joe Wilson Today

[corplinx]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Joe Wilson Today

Does that mean he is correct that you are refering to Rove's reference to her as "Wilson's wife" rather than "Valarie Plame"?

It matters a great deal whether or not he used her name and job status with Matt Cooper.

Here's 5 statements:

Wilson's wife got him his job.

It doesn't mention his wife's name (which could be different than Wilson) and doesn't mention where she works.

Wilson's wife works at the CIA and got him the job.

Here "Plame" is not named nor is it acknowledged that she is an undercover op. It is the equivalent of saying "Tenet got him the job".

Valerie Plame who is Wilson's wife and works at the CIA got him the job.

The only thing compromised is her name which means she would have to use a false name for future undercover operations if she went back into field work. Did she use her real name in the field? Need more info.

In lieu of there not being a crime committed, the only offense I would oust Rove over is naming her directly since she didn't go by Valerie Wilson.

 

[corplinx]

Re: Re: Re: Joe Wilson Today

You are missing the point: Wilson is an evil tool of satanic forces who are trying to frame Rove.

Strawman.

 

[Rob Lister]

Then why does Rove have a lawyer, I think his name is Robert Luskin.

And what has been investigated for so long?

Because partisans are predictable. Predictable not only in their approach but their rhetoric. Ignore the constitutional right to an attorney, ignore the prudence of an attorney but DON'T ignore the attorney and the fact that Rove has not said a single word.

What has been investigated for so long? The left demanded a special prosecutor and Bush gave them what they asked for - chuckling no doubt as he did so.

My take, after hearing Joe Wilson, is that you have been had. You were (and still are) watching the hand that's waving while not even glancing at the hand near the pocket. This is Bush Illusion Tactic 101. It's like the tenth time he's used it and partisans, on both sides of the isle, have yet to catch on.

While you're were watching the infamous deputy chief of staff get run through the political mill to absolutely no avail, and to no detrement to Bush even if it were to some avail, Bush was busy forming alliances and making deals as it regards the next supreme court nomination, possible the next two or three, with little or no media attention.

Yea, I know, you don't believe me. Okay, whatever. This story isn't over yet. Hunt for the smoking gun. It's got to be in there somewhere.

 

[Mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Joe Wilson Today

Strawman.

No, it is an expression of utter disgust at the sewer level tactics of Republicans who are attempting to demonize this man for no reason other than cowardly desperation. On the other hand, these are the same people who feel no shame at all about trashing the war records of honorable veterans to get what they want.

It's nauseating.

And now, after spending 44 million dollars going after Clinton for nothing they have the bare faced gall to complain about this investigation.

 

[WildCat]

Article in Bloomberg...Wilson's assertions hold up two years later...

From your link:

A day after Wilson's piece was published, the White House acknowledged that a claim Bush made in his January 2003 state of the union address that Iraq tried to buy ``significant quantities of uranium from Africa'' could not be verified and shouldn't have been included in the speech.

What Bush actually said:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Now, headscratcher4, is this Bush's claim or the British gov'ts claim? Clearly, it's the latter. And do you know what? British intelligence stands by that to this day.

Bloomberg wouldn't spin this story because of political bias, would they? Why should I believe anything in that article, when they clearly lied in this instance?

 

[normdoering]

Because partisans are predictable. Predictable not only in their approach but their rhetoric. Ignore the constitutional right to an attorney, ignore the prudence of an attorney but DON'T ignore the attorney and the fact that Rove has not said a single word.

Huh? Since when did I ignore Rove's right to an attorney?

And the problem is that Rove, his attorney and people in the Bush administration have already said too much.

What has been investigated for so long? The left demanded a special prosecutor and Bush gave them what they asked for - chuckling no doubt as he did so.

My take, after hearing Joe Wilson, is that you have been had. You were (and still are) watching the hand that's waving while not even glancing at the hand near the pocket. This is Bush Illusion Tactic 101. It's like the tenth time he's used it and partisans, on both sides of the isle, have yet to catch on.

Name the other times.

While you're were watching the infamous deputy chief of staff get run through the political mill to absolutely no avail, and to no detrement to Bush even if it were to some avail, Bush was busy forming alliances and making deals as it regards the next supreme court nomination, possible the next two or three, with little or no media attention.

Umm, dude -- I'm not John Kerry or any other democratic senator. I don't think there are any posting here.

I have utterly no power to influence or vote on Judge selection or to influence an investigation for that matter.

Yea, I know, you don't believe me. Okay, whatever. This story isn't over yet. Hunt for the smoking gun. It's got to be in there somewhere.

We'll see, won't we?

All this is about is which media sources are plugged into reality and who can predict future events better because their information sources are better informed and not trying to BS them.

You're the one being BSed I think.

 

[Mark]

We'll see, won't we?

Doubtful. If Rove is convicted of anything (and with the Republicans controlling everything that is rather doubtful), then the Right will say he was the victim of a witch hunt. If he is not convicted, they will say it proves he did nothing wrong in the first place.

That's just the way these people think. The only hope is to convince enough independent voters that one party rule is ruining the country, and maybe then restore some sort of integrity to our government.

 

[Rob Lister]

You're the one being BSed I think.

Bush had a meeting today in which reporters were present. He was asked a series of questions specifically relating to Rove/Plame. His only response was to not pre-judge Rove based on media reports.

What was the purpose of the meeting?

 

[WildCat]

Doubtful. If Rove is convicted of anything (and with the Republicans controlling everything that is rather doubtful), then the Right will say he was the victim of a witch hunt. If he is not convicted, they will say it proves he did nothing wrong in the first place.

That's just the way these people think. The only hope is to convince enough independent voters that one party rule is ruining the country, and maybe then restore some sort of integrity to our government.

That vast right-wing conspiracy again... and here I thought the Trilateral Commission and Masons ran the world.

Independents (of which I am one) are watching the Democrats strategy of obstruction, whining, mindless opposition to everything the Republicans offer, distortions, and complete lack of an agenda of their own and are voting Republican, even if it means holding their nose while doing so.

 

[Rob Lister]

That vast right-wing conspiracy again... and here I thought the Trilateral Commission and Masons ran the world.

Independents (of which I am one) are watching the Democrats strategy of obstruction, whining, mindless opposition to everything the Republicans offer, distortions, and complete lack of an agenda of their own and are voting Republican, even if it means holding their nose while doing so.

Ditto.

 

[normdoering]

Bush had a meeting today in which reporters were present. He was asked a series of questions specifically relating to Rove/Plame. His only response was to not pre-judge Rove based on media reports.

What was the purpose of the meeting?

If Rove gets off, he can say -- see I told you so. If not, well, he's not hurt too bad.

As long as there is an open question -- the press is going to be all over it -- pushing every source and trying to predict the outcome. Bush is spitting into the wind on that count. You can't stop the press from testing their sources.

 

[Rob Lister]

If Rove gets off, he can say -- see I told you so. If not, well, he's not hurt too bad.

As long as there is an open question -- the press is going to be all over it -- pushing every source and trying to predict the outcome. Bush is spitting into the wind on that count. You can't stop the press from testing their sources.

Yea, fine, but what was the purpose of the meeting. Surely you've googled it by now, haven't you? If not, do so. See if you can determine what the purpose of the meeting in which reporters only asked questions relating to matters that had nothing to do with with the meeting. Go ahead. It's there, but not very obvious. Happy hunting.

Meanwhile...yea, you're right, I'm being BSed.

 

[Batman Jr.]

From your link:


What Bush actually said:

Now, headscratcher4, is this Bush's claim or the British gov'ts claim? Clearly, it's the latter. And do you know what? British intelligence stands by that to this day.

Bloomberg wouldn't spin this story because of political bias, would they? Why should I believe anything in that article, when they clearly lied in this instance?

They didn't lie. The White House did issue a very clear mea culpa about the insertion of the Iraq-Niger statement and said that had they known the famous memo was fraudulent, they wouldn't have included those dubious sixteen words in the SOTU. It doesn't make any sense for them to have done that if they really were establishing their allegations on what they had thought were the fertile soils of a completely unrelated inquiry conducted by the British government. My guess is that they threw the British in with the mix not because they trusted them, but so they would have someone to point the finger at.

White House Press Conference of July 7, 2003
Q So you believe the British report that he was trying to obtain uranium from an African nation is true?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?

Q If you're hanging on the British report, you believe that that British report was true, you have no reason to believe --

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, I see what David is asking. Let me back up on that and explain the President's statement again, or the answer to it.

The President's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake from Niger. The President made a broad statement. So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the President's broader statement, David. So, yes, the President' broader statement was based and predicated on the yellow cake from Niger.

Q So it was wrong?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's what we've acknowledged with the information on --

Q The President's statement at the State of the Union was incorrect?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because it was based on the yellow cake from Niger.

Q Well, wait a minute, but the explanation we've gotten before was it was based on Niger and the other African nations that have been named in the national intelligence --

MR. FLEISCHER: But, again, the information on -- the President did not have that information prior to his giving the State of the Union.

 

[Mark]

That vast right-wing conspiracy again... and here I thought the Trilateral Commission and Masons ran the world.

Independents (of which I am one) are watching the Democrats strategy of obstruction, whining, mindless opposition to everything the Republicans offer, distortions, and complete lack of an agenda of their own and are voting Republican, even if it means holding their nose while doing so.

What?!?!?!?!

The Democrats have done little else since Bush took office but lay down and play dead.

Once again you merely show that the Right are not happy with anything but total control of everything. This notion of the Right being a persecuted majority is idiotic in the extreme.

I do agree, however, that the Democrats have no agenda of their own. They also have no backbone and have spent far too much time rubber stamping everything Bush and his cronies have done. Starting with the pointless and self-defeating war.

 

[WildCat]

What?!?!?!?!

The Democrats have done little else since Bush took office but lay down and play dead.

Once again you merely show that the Right are not happy with anything but total control of everything. This notion of the Right being a persecuted majority is idiotic in the extreme.

I do agree, however, that the Democrats have no agenda of their own. They also have no backbone and have spent far too much time rubber stamping everything Bush and his cronies have done. Starting with the pointless and self-defeating war.

Do you live in an alternate universe or something?

 

[normdoering]

Yea, fine, but what was the purpose of the meeting. Surely you've googled it by now, haven't you? If not, do so. See if you can determine what the purpose of the meeting in which reporters only asked questions relating to matters that had nothing to do with with the meeting. Go ahead. It's there, but not very obvious. Happy hunting.

Meanwhile...yea, you're right, I'm being BSed.

Bush had a meeting today is not enough to google on.

But it is enough to hit the yahoo news site. Is this link below what you're talking about?

http://www.dailybulletin.com/Stories/0,1413,203~26127~2961919,00.html

 

[Rob Lister]

Bush had a meeting today is not enough to google on.

But it is enough to hit the yahoo news site. Is this link below what you're talking about?

http://www.dailybulletin.com/Stories/0,1413,203~26127~2961919,00.html

Nope. That would be the day before yesterday. I'm talking about today.

Clips were on msnbc, cnn, fox, cbs, abc, and nbc. The questions were clear. The answers were clear. The hostility from the press corps/anchors was clear. What was not clear was what they were meeting about.

Expand your horizons.

Edit to add: Oops, my bad. Please understand that "my today" and "your today" may differ. This actually took place on the 13th (which is still my day because I keep very odd hours). In deference to my bad I shall refer you to a very detailed report from the AP about this meeting. Read it in it's entirety.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3264477

You back? Now, back to the original question. What was the meeting about?

 

[normdoering]

In deference to my bad I shall refer you to a very detailed report from the AP about this meeting. Read it in it's entirety.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3264477

You back? Now, back to the original question. What was the meeting about?

There was nothing in your article link but talk of Karl Rove. If the meeting was about something other than Rove, the writer didn't care about it.

 

[Mark]

Do you live in an alternate universe or something?

Nope. I live in the one where Republicans control the House, the Senate, the White House, the Supreme Court, and most Governorships. And where you want me to believe the poor dears are being persecuted by those nasty Democrats who have a majority control of nothing.

 

[normdoering]

Nope. I live in the one where Republicans control the House, the Senate, the White House, the Supreme Court, and most Governorships. And where you want me to believe the poor dears are being persecuted by those nasty Democrats who have a majority control of nothing.

Don't get too down about that. Things are slowly changing. Cracks seem to be opening all over the neocon universe. The press is beginning to feel somewhat empowered, there is more hope now that Bush will go down- one way or another. The polls are saying the majority of American people no longer trust him like they use to. And in 2006, a shift in power may occur.