Joe Wilson Today

[Jocko]

I get it...none of that bothers you. And yet I am the "true believer." Must be nice to have such utter, religious faith in your heroes. For those of us who prefer to think for ourselves, it is more problematic...

Phenomenal, Mark. I frame your own grotesque bias, and you manufacture an entire mindset for me.

Then, being the accomodating fellow you are, you explain to me precisely what I'm thinking, what my beliefs and priorities are, without me ever saying a word about them.

Forget the true believer thing, you're a goddamned psychic.

Tell me, Mark: If there was a "scandal" that promised the possibility of nailing Rove (or any GOP baby eater, for that matter) for an illicit blowjob, would you be in favor of pursuing it?

 

[Mark]

Phenomenal, Mark. I frame your own grotesque bias, and you manufacture an entire mindset for me.

Then, being the accomodating fellow you are, you explain to me precisely what I'm thinking, what my beliefs and priorities are, without me ever saying a word about them.

Forget the true believer thing, you're a goddamned psychic.

Tell me, Mark: If there was a "scandal" that promised the possibility of nailing Rove (or any GOP baby eater, for that matter) for an illicit blowjob, would you be in favor of pursuing it?

Your opening line is so self contradictory as to be laughable. But to answer your question:

No. As evidenced by the fact that I had/have no interest in Newt Gingrich's blowjobs from the wife of a fellow college professor. Still don't.

And I have never used the term "baby eater."

I am a registered independent...what I want to see is a return of the checks and balances in government. One Party Rule is destroying our country; I would feel just as strongly about it if it were the Democrats controlling everything.

You don't know anything about me at all.

 

[Jocko]

You don't know anything about me at all.

Hmm...

"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."

Once again you merely show that the Right are not happy with anything but total control of everything.

Republicans control the ... the Supreme Court.

Then there is the whole Halliburton fiasco, and the record deficits, and a half dozen other extreme examples of Republican malfeasance. I'll be entertained for quite some time!

I think I don't need to consult Watson to deduce quite a bit about you, actually. I didn't even have to leave this thread.

 

[Mark]

Hmm...



I think I don't need to consult Watson to deduce quite a bit about you, actually. I didn't even have to leave this thread.

Yep...you managed to prove that I hate Republican malfeasance and dishonesty. And I'm sure if you had your way, that would be a criminal offense.

Of course, I hate Democrat malfeasance and dishonesty, too...but, then, they aren't in charge of everything right now! That's the difference bewteen you and me: I hate dishonesty in government, and you hate Democrats.

 

[Upchurch]

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

I think what you and Upchurch are proving is that there are some people who can't accept evidence thus far and want to believe the speculation too much.

Beg your pardon?

And now the people burned by this are playing a shellgame with words, pushing goalposts, etc, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you the one who was arguing that "Wilson's wife" doesn't identify the woman but "Valarie Plame" does?

Today's revelation that Novak told Rove Plame's identity (if it is true) may make this point moot, but either people who haven't been burned by this are also playing shellgames with words, or you've been burned by this somehow.

Did a senior administration official knowingly out an undercover CIA operative. What the evidence (the evidence we have) shows is that this is not the case.

Novak originally wrote, "Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report." (source) Further, Rove has a history of leaking information to Novak (source 1, 2, 3). Rove's laywer announced that Rove spoke to reporters about Plame and Cooper considers Rove his source (my source). It was not unreasonable from all of this to conclude that Rove was one of the two senior administration officials Novak refered to.

Since then the evidence has changed and has gotten more muddied. If Plame was not, in fact, an undercover CIA operative, we've got the Worst. Attorney General's office. Ever. that they could not learn this vital, and rather simple, piece of information over the course of two years.

I'm rather convinced that we too much information and misinformation to decide anything anymore. Ultimately, we'll have to see what the grand jury decides.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

Novak originally wrote, "Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report." (source)

I keep having to point this out: your above quote is incomplete, and misses a critical distinction. Here's the more complete quote, from that same source:
"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report."
The first sentence is the sentence that outs Plame, NOT the second sentence which you quote. And the first sentence is unsourced - it could have been those administration officials who told him that, it could have been someone else. There's absolutely no way to tell from Novak's original column. Why can nobody read this correctly?

 

[Upchurch]

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

I keep having to point this out: your above quote is incomplete, and misses a critical distinction. Here's the more complete quote, from that same source:
"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report."
The first sentence is the sentence that outs Plame, NOT the second sentence which you quote. And the first sentence is unsourced - it could have been those administration officials who told him that, it could have been someone else. There's absolutely no way to tell from Novak's original column. Why can nobody read this correctly?

Probably because they take it in conjunction with Novak's October 1, 2003 response:

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife.

Perhaps I should have simply used this quote instead. My appologies.

It is entirely possible that Rove is the "Oh, you know about it" man, but it still leaves the question of who the first senior administration official is.

 

[Mark]

As I just posted on the "blabbermouth" thread, at the very least Rove lied inder oath to the Grand jury multiple times...which was the reason Clinton was impeached. I can't wait to see how they spin that one.

 

[Jocko]

Yep...you managed to prove that I hate Republican malfeasance and dishonesty.

No, you have proven that you ASSUME Republican malfeasance and dishonesty, regardless of what the evidence indicates...

And I'm sure if you had your way, that would be a criminal offense.

...Just as you ASSUME anyone who takes your dogma to task is a jackbooted nazi. I love what passes for independent these days.

Of course, I hate Democrat malfeasance and dishonesty, too...but, then, they aren't in charge of everything right now!

Ah, so it's either impossible or irrelevant unless it's conducted from a majority point of view?

That's the difference bewteen you and me: I hate dishonesty in government, and you hate Democrats.

Please let me know where I even hinted that I hate Democrats?

 

[Ziggurat]

As I just posted on the "blabbermouth" thread, at the very least Rove lied inder oath to the Grand jury multiple times...which was the reason Clinton was impeached. I can't wait to see how they spin that one.

I'm amused that you're so willing to jump to this conclusion when there is no transcript of Rove's testimony to the grand jury. If Rove lied under oath, then by all means string him up. But it's really just speculation at this point, and your absolute certainty that he lied without knowing exactly what he said is, well, I guess the best word is humorous.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

It is entirely possible that Rove is the "Oh, you know about it" man, but it still leaves the question of who the first senior administration official is.

Indeed it does. It also STILL leaves as an open question whether Novak originally found out Plame worked for the CIA from either of them. Your second quote from Novak works either way: her identity as CIA could have been new information provided by those whitehouse officials, or it could have been something he already knew but is including here to establish the context for what the whitehouse officials did tell him, namely that she recommended Wilson. We still can't tell: this more recent quote is indeed more suggestive, but it still does not explicitly tell us that any whitehouse official was Novak's original source for Plame's identity as a CIA employee (let alone a covert operative).

 

[Mark]

I'm amused that you're so willing to jump to this conclusion when there is no transcript of Rove's testimony to the grand jury. If Rove lied under oath, then by all means string him up. But it's really just speculation at this point, and your absolute certainty that he lied without knowing exactly what he said is, well, I guess the best word is humorous.

I will grant that the source for this was congressional Democrats and, as such, is suspect until corroborated. We'll see. These unnamed sources also claimed that Rove is about to be formally charged with perjury.

To Jocko: Putting words in my mouth to prove your point merely shows that you are willing to lie without hesitation; it says nothing at all about me. I have never, not once, referred to Republicans as "jackbooted Nazis" or "Baby eaters." I will accept your apology if you are man enough to make one.

 

[BPSCG]

[peeve]

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

Lie down and play dead, not lay down...

[/peeve]

So when is Rove going to be indicted? I mean, he committed a crime, didn't he? So when's he going to be indicted? And what's he going to be charged with?

And while we're at it, when is Tom Delay going to be indicted? He's guilty of something, too, isn't he? Howard Dean says so, so it must be true. Isn't there a single prosecutor in all of Texas that wants to throw Delay's butt in jail and make a name for himself, run for state attorney general or governor ?

 

[Mark]

[peeve]

Lie down and play dead, not lay down...

[/peeve]

So when is Rove going to be indicted? I mean, he committed a crime, didn't he? So when's he going to be indicted? And what's he going to be charged with?

And while we're at it, when is Tom Delay going to be indicted? He's guilty of something, too, isn't he? Howard Dean says so, so it must be true. Isn't there a single prosecutor in all of Texas that wants to throw Delay's butt in jail and make a name for himself, run for state attorney general or governor ?

Give it time. With the Republicans in control of all 3 branches of the federal government, and most of the states, it's a miracle any invesigating is taking place at all. Give it time.

Pardon my improper use of a transitive verb. Seriously.

 

[corplinx]

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

Beg your pardon?

I'm rather convinced that we too much information and misinformation to decide anything anymore. Ultimately, we'll have to see what the grand jury decides.

As I look at your posts on this subject, it occurs to me you have had a Rove-guilty writing style from the get-go. Look at the way you marked out over the Newsweek story (which others of us quite embarassed had to point out didn't support the post you made about it).

And now you conveniently cover you tracks by saying too much is unknown. Varwoche and myself were saying that same thing when the Newsweek story broke. I am glad you have joined the team. However, since much is unknown I think caution errs on the side of not presuming Rove guilty.

Honestly, I never though I would be defending a man I loathe so much. Kinda reminds me of when I defend someone like Howard Dean. I may not like the person but I hate seeing someone get a bum rap.

 

[crackmonkey]

For the record, I eat babies.

 

[BPSCG]

Give it time. With the Republicans in control of all 3 branches of the federal government, and most of the states, it's a miracle any invesigating is taking place at all.

What, you mean there aren't any stalwart Democratic state's attorneys in Texas willing to stand up for what's right? And there are no Dem-leaning federal prosecutors willing to put their careers on the line for justice? Sad.

Give it time.

Okay. But again, what are they going to be charged with? Perjury? Far as I can see, the only person in this whole affair that we know to have lied is Joe Wilson.

 

[normdoering]

As I just posted on the "blabbermouth" thread, at the very least Rove lied inder oath to the Grand jury multiple times...which was the reason Clinton was impeached. I can't wait to see how they spin that one.

Not necessarily. You know I'm no defender of Rove, he's the worst kind of of political hatchet-man (Bush calls him turd blossom), but watch out -- something is beginning to smell like a con job.

How is it we one day get a leak, out of what must be boatloads of information Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has gathered as evidence, about Cooper's email in which Rove mentions Wilson's wife, and then next day get information Rove got his information from Novak and another source.

Why are we -- considering all the information that must've been gathered -- getting these tid-bits in this order?

 

[Upchurch]

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

As I look at your posts on this subject, it occurs to me you have had a Rove-guilty writing style from the get-go.

Actually, I had an anti-partisanship writing style from the get-go, or at least that was my intention. You'll note my use of words like "if" and "assuming it is true".

Look at the way you marked out over the Newsweek story (which others of us quite embarassed had to point out didn't support the post you made about it).

Which Newsweek story, now? I looked back over the various threads from the last couple of days and I didn't see where I had referenced a Newsweek article to make a point that was later shown to not support it.

I'm not saying I didn't, I just don't know what you're talking about to be able to respond to this.

And now you conveniently cover you tracks by saying too much is unknown.

"Covering my tracks" or "considering new information as it is presented"?

Varwoche and myself were saying that same thing when the Newsweek story broke. I am glad you have joined the team. However, since much is unknown I think caution errs on the side of not presuming Rove guilty.

That has been my entire point about partisanship througout this Rove thing. I'm not joining any team. Doing so and presuming Rove's guilt or innocence closes one's mind to the possibility of the alternative. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal default, not a logical default.

 

[corplinx]

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

Actually, I had an anti-partisanship writing style from the get-go, or at least that was my intention. You'll note my use of words like "if" and "assuming it is true".

Yet we have this quote from the thread about the newsweek piece:

Wait a minute. I'm confused.

Before it was publically known who the leak was, this issue was considered serious enough to warrent a Justice Department investigation. Now that it's been traced to Rove, who apparently perjured himself to the grand jury (an act considered worthy of impeachment by Republicans less than a decade ago), suddenly we're not even sure a crime has been committed?

It isn't that I'm surprised at the naked corruption in the administration or the gross complacency of the media who fail to report it. That doesn't surprise me at all.

I'm offended by it.

This isn't a cover up of one man's reprehensible person character to take advantage of an intern. This was a cover up of the outing of a CIA agent for the sole purpose of quieting political discent about the reasons for going to war that can't, apparently, stand on its own merits. The two situations aren't even remotely similar, save the purjury, and yet the worse one seems to be receiving mostly "oh well" shrugs.

Maybe I got the wrong impression from this post or misunderstand your meaning.