• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Joe Wilson Today

Yep...just chock full of 'ifs' and 'assuming it is trues' and totally absent any assumption of Rove's guilt...
:rolleyes:
 
Nation Still After Rove

In this story just filed by the Nation, they obviously are still trying to get Rove:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=6799

In their opinion, even if the latest story is true, Rove is still[tangentially] involved with the leak, and therefore the whitehouse people are still guilty of lying.

"Here's the bottom line (based on the Rove-friendly leaks): Rove permitted the White House to lie for him. What's unknown is who else in the White House realized the Rove-was-not-involved line was a lie. And the latest accounts also show that Rove did share classified information--Valerie Wilson's employment status with the CIA was classified--with two reporters. Bush has previously said he would fire anyone who leaked classified information. Rove has practically admitted leaking classified information. What Bush will do about that? "

[edit: removed comment]

I'm still learning about this story, just what verbiage justifies this claim of lying?

The best the story offers is:

"As has been much noted, in 2003, press secretary Scott McClellan repeatedly said that Karl Rove was not involved in the leak."

I do not see this as a lie in this scenario, am I from Mars or something?

Did the man actually say "Karl Rove was not either of the two men refered to in the Novak column." Yes or No?

They do bring up the sharing of classified information, but neglect to point out that Rove is not the target of the investigation, perhaps they feel that is a lie also.
 
Re: Nation Still After Rove

NoviceCrackPot said:
"As has been much noted, in 2003, press secretary Scott McClellan repeatedly said that Karl Rove was not involved in the leak."

I do not see this as a lie in this scenario, am I from Mars or something?
Click to expand...

You're not from Mars. It's easy to get confused by this story because it is so very partisan in nature. Take the quote I left above for exampe. Who are they quoting?

Nobody. Why not bring in the actual McClellan quote? Because that would not have the same impact. Instead we get a quote from reporter paraphrasing McClellan, just as we get quotes from reporters paraphrasing Bush as having said 'I will fire anyone involved with this leak'. Bush never said that but you see various versions of that paraphrase in the papers and especially on the bolgs.
 
Re: Nation Still After Rove

NoviceCrackPot said:
I'm still learning about this story, just what verbiage justifies this claim of lying?

The best the story offers is:

"As has been much noted, in 2003, press secretary Scott McClellan repeatedly said that Karl Rove was not involved in the leak."

I do not see this as a lie in this scenario, am I from Mars or something?
Click to expand...

Just confirming Novak's information does involve Rove in the leak of Plame's name -- but not in a criminal way. It does, technically, involve Rove in the leak and so you can't say he was not involved. But you also can't say he was criminally involved -- yet.

You have to keep in mind that most of us who think (but can't prove) Rove is guilty also think there is a deep Rove/Novak connection. Rove seems to be a primary source on other Novak stories. Novak and Rove have used each other for a long time now. Just that admission of confirmation suggests there may be deeper connections.

Rove is not the target of the investigation, perhaps they feel that is a lie also.
Click to expand...

We think he should be a target. But it may be true that on this particular occasion he may not have been Novak's primary source.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Joe Wilson Today

corplinx said:
Yet we have this quote from the thread about the newsweek piece:
Click to expand...
Oh, that's the Newsweek piece? (It's a Newsweek piece? I missed that particular link)
Maybe I got the wrong impression from this post or misunderstand your meaning.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I told you so at the time. Far from embarrassing me by showing the piece didn't support my point, you've actually added strength to my argument by missing the point, not once, but twice. I'll admit that I wasn't nearly as clear the first time as the second, but here's what I said (abridged):
You misunderstood my point.

I'm not railing against Rove specifically (well, maybe a little). I'm railing against the partisan mindset, which I believe is the antithesis of skeptical thought (or rather an antithesis). In this particular case, right/conservative/Republican/whatever partisans are cherry-picking the available facts to fit the belief that the Bush Administration, via Rove, did nothing wrong.

{snip}

I'm not saying it's just Republicans. Democrats do it, too. This case simply highlights Republican partisanship and how it behaves just like a bunch of woo-woos with a continual stream of new (and sometimes self-contradictory) excuses why the evidence didn't match up to their expectations.
Click to expand...
It's not like I was hiding behind ambiguous wording.
 
Re: Re: Re: Nation Still After Rove

Rob Lister said:
Regardless of his involvement!
Click to expand...

He was involved -- you don't read well, you've got a spin filter in your brain. He did at least confirm Novak's information. He did tell Copper. He did tell Chris Matthews Plame was fair game. I have yet to hear those facts challenged.

That's involvement even if not criminal.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nation Still After Rove

Rob Lister said:
If it's not criminal, the target is missing.
Click to expand...

You don't know it's not criminal. You are a person of faith -- faith in Rove.

Involvement is still involvement. It doesn't have to be criminal.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nation Still After Rove

normdoering said:
You don't know it's not criminal. You are a person of faith -- faith in Rove.

Involvement is still involvement. It doesn't have to be criminal.
Click to expand...

I'm a person of faith only insofar as what I've heard so far. So far it appears Rove has been exonerated. But I suppose there's still hope (for you) that he did something wrong somewhere, sometime.

Not sure about Powell, though. Will you be lambasting him if he turns out to be the real 'leak'?

What about Wilson? What if he were the real, original source?

I doubt that. It has to be someone that can take on the characteristics of "senior bush administration official" and "no partisan gunslinger". Someone suggested Tenent, and I suppose that's possible. It fits the timeline. But I think Powell is the real source.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nation Still After Rove

Rob Lister said:
I'm a person of faith only insofar as what I've heard so far. So far it appears Rove has been exonerated. But I suppose there's still hope (for you) that he did something wrong somewhere, sometime.

Not sure about Powell, though. Will you be lambasting him if he turns out to be the real 'leak'?

What about Wilson? What if he were the real, original source?

I doubt that. It has to be someone that can take on the characteristics of "senior bush administration official" and "no partisan gunslinger". Someone suggested Tenent, and I suppose that's possible. It fits the timeline. But I think Powell is the real source.
Click to expand...

You are still very uninformed in spite of all the information here.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nation Still After Rove

normdoering said:
You are still very uninformed in spite of all the information here.
Click to expand...

And yet my initial impression was very close to the one supported by the evidence thus far presented. If you have anything of substance to add, feel free.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nation Still After Rove

Rob Lister said:
And yet my initial impression was very close to the one supported by the evidence thus far presented. If you have anything of substance to add, feel free.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'll add something -- already added in the blabbermouth thread.

If you really think Powell or Wilson are the leak -- you're crazy. There is utterly no evidence to suggest them. It's completely off the wall.
 
normdoering said:
So, what's the evidence you think you have?
Click to expand...

You are addressing the wrong person. Crackmonkey's comment was on the irony of your post. Clearly you don't get it but nobody really should expect you to, given your posting history.

It is I that suspect Powell may have been the original leak.

It is speculation, nothing more. It fits. I detailed my assessment earlier in the blabbermouth thread. Somewhere between pages 8 and 11 I think. I also detailed a bit of it just above in in this thread.
 
Rob Lister said:
It is I that suspect Powell may have been the original leak.

It is speculation, nothing more. It fits. I detailed my assessment earlier in the blabbermouth thread. Somewhere between pages 8 and 11 I think. I also detailed a bit of it just above in in this thread.
Click to expand...

Yes, I remember -- it was off the wall. Rove is far more probable. You have to get your mind around the fact that Rove is a professional political manipulator and liar. You trust him too much.
 
normdoering said:
Yes, I remember -- it was off the wall. Rove is far more probable. You have to get your mind around the fact that Rove is a professional political manipulator and liar. You trust him too much.
Click to expand...

Jeez dude. I'm not sure if you're just trolling or what. I'm assume you're honestly ignorant.

There were two (2) <---that's the number II if you're Roman
sources, not one.

One was presumable Rove, circumstances notwithstanding.

The other, the PRIMARY, was described by Novak as someone that is "no partisan gunslinger"

That CAN'T be Rove. If you look up partisan gunslinger in the dictionary there's a picture of Rove in the margin.

Who was it then?

Let's see...who was a senior adminstration official (as described) at the time of the story (july 2003) that could credibly be considered as someone that is "no partisan gunslinger"?

Let me think.

Wait...it's coming to me...
 
Rob Lister said:
Let's see...who was a senior adminstration official (as described) at the time of the story (july 2003) that could credibly be considered as someone that is "no partisan gunslinger"?
Click to expand...

Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith or Michael Maloof.

And why are you so sure Novak is honest?
 
Re: Re: Nation Still After Rove

normdoering said:
Just confirming Novak's information does involve Rove in the leak of Plame's name -- but not in a criminal way. It does, technically, involve Rove in the leak and so you can't say he was not involved. But you also can't say he was criminally involved -- yet.
Click to expand...

This is just the issue I wanted to see hashed out (wished I hadn't had to leave the computer)

I was trying to visualize/imagine the press conference.

Reporter: Was Carl Rove one of the two men in the original Novak piece?

Press Secretary: He is not a target of the investigation.

Reporter: Was he involved in any way?

Press Secretary: No.

This works, the press secretary is saying that Rove is not the leaker, not conspiring with the leaker and not a target of the investigation. He never says Rove wasn't one of the two men. To the press secretary and to the public "involvement" has sinister connotations, he has to say Rove has no involvement, if he is not going to be more specific.

Of course I wasn't there and know nothing about how it really went. Also I really don't know what a press secretary "has to say".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom