crackmonkey
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,057
Rob Lister has proven to be remarkably insightful.
Take lessons from him, norm.
Rob Lister has proven to be remarkably insightful.
Take lessons from him, norm.
normdoering
Muse
- Joined
- May 29, 2005
- Messages
- 656
crackmonkey said:
Really?
Do me a favor and read this NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/16/p...&en=73e6600ab118b6c9&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Then tell me what you think it's about.
Here's a small sample:
Investigators in the case have been trying to learn whether officials at the White House and elsewhere in the administration learned of the C.I.A. officer's identity from the memorandum. They are seeking to determine if any officials then passed the name along to journalists and if officials were truthful in testifying about whether they had read the memorandum, the people who have been briefed said, asking not to be named because the special prosecutor heading the investigation had requested that no one discuss the case.
The memo was sent to Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, just before or as he traveled with President Bush and other senior officials to Africa starting on July 7, 2003, when the White House was scrambling to defend itself from a blast of criticism a few days earlier from the former diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, current and former government officials said.
Mr. Powell was seen walking around Air Force One during the trip with the memo in hand, said a person involved in the case who also requested anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about talking about the investigation.
And here's a link for the hell of it:
http://mediamatters.org/
crackmonkey
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,057
Yeah! It was Powell! GET HIM!!!
normdoering
Muse
- Joined
- May 29, 2005
- Messages
- 656
crackmonkey said:
Nope, I don't think so.
But I thought that's what you'd say.
crackmonkey
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,057
You Powell apologist.
President Bush
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,506
NoviceCrackPot
New Blood
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 21
crackmonkey said:
I think what you meant to say was:
"Can we have a show of hands?
How many would like to see Powell prosecuted if he's the 'no partisan gunslinger' guy"?
[edit: changed to "partisan" from "political"]
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
NoviceCrackPot said:
Not me. I kinda like powell. Plus it is unlikely there is anything to be prosecuted for. If it were Powell it would be humorous to say the least.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nation Still After Rove
How about faith in the New York Times and the Washington Post? They're both on the record as believing that "outing" Plame wasn't a crime. Are they "partisan gunslingers", too?normdoering said:
That's true. But then what's the screaming and shouting all about? Should Rove be fired because he had no involvement in something that wasn't a crime?
NoviceCrackPot
New Blood
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 21
Rob Lister said:
I think you meant to say "If it were Powell, it would be ironic, to say the least."
normdoering
Muse
- Joined
- May 29, 2005
- Messages
- 656
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nation Still After Rove
A newspaper is not a person. You can't really say that a paper like the NYT or WP "believe" anything. Various reporters who work for them believe different things. The Newspapers as a whole are not partisan, but they have reporters who are partisan on both sides, democratic and republican. For example, Paul Krugman would be viewed pretty much a democratic partisan and he writes for the New York Times. Here's what he said:
"...as part of the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson IV, Mr. Rove leaked the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the C.I.A. I don't know whether Mr. Rove can be convicted of a crime, but there's no question that he damaged national security for partisan advantage. If a Democrat had done that, Republicans would call it treason."
Here's the article it's from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html?th&emc=th
Now your claim is disproven. Krugman doesn't know -- at this time nobody really knows if Rove comitted a crime.
Judith Miller was a republican partisan who worked for the New York Times. She's the one in jail protecting a source who apparently lied to her.
Again, Rove was involved -- he told Cooper and confirmed Novak. The crime part is still in question. But if you're asking a speculative question and not stating a belief, as you seem to be doing, then, no, he shouldn't be arrested for non-crimes he wasn't involved with. He should be arrested for the crimes he was involved with. And even if he didn't commit the crime he is the worst kind of political hatchetman and it says bad things about Bush that he would have someone like Rove working for him. Rove should be fired for just being a dishonest thug.
The "poor honest and falsely accused me" pabulum coming from Rove is hilarious considering Rove is the dirtiest dirty trickster in politics. Remember the John McCain black baby smears from election 2000? That was vintage Rove, as was the push polling that led the president to victory in South Carolina. There's lots more like that.
Karl Rove got his start in direct mail political campaigns where you can still do what the politicians of old did -- tell different groups different things. For example, during the 2004 campaign against the Catholic John Kerry Rove came up with this:
http://www.jregrassroots.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t7120.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/faith/
"The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush."
So, even if everything said about Rove is a lie -- he deserves being on the end of his own tactics. It would be exactly the kind of game he plays.
http://www.bustbob.com/view.asp?ID=5
Karl Rove and Novak: They've Talked Before
Rove fired from Bush Sr's '92 campaign over leak to Novak. Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak's piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust." Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak's source.
Rove was the "only one with a motive to leak": Mosbacher says: "I said Rove is the only one with a motive to leak this. We let him go." The motive in question? Mosbacher had given Rove only a quarter of the $1 million spent on direct mail contracts for the 92 campaign; Rove, who in 1988 had the entire direct mail contract, therefore had an axe to grind with Mosbacher. Novak's column stated: "Also attending the session was political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher."
BPSCG said:
A newspaper is not a person. You can't really say that a paper like the NYT or WP "believe" anything. Various reporters who work for them believe different things. The Newspapers as a whole are not partisan, but they have reporters who are partisan on both sides, democratic and republican. For example, Paul Krugman would be viewed pretty much a democratic partisan and he writes for the New York Times. Here's what he said:
"...as part of the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson IV, Mr. Rove leaked the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the C.I.A. I don't know whether Mr. Rove can be convicted of a crime, but there's no question that he damaged national security for partisan advantage. If a Democrat had done that, Republicans would call it treason."
Here's the article it's from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html?th&emc=th
Now your claim is disproven. Krugman doesn't know -- at this time nobody really knows if Rove comitted a crime.
Judith Miller was a republican partisan who worked for the New York Times. She's the one in jail protecting a source who apparently lied to her.
Again, Rove was involved -- he told Cooper and confirmed Novak. The crime part is still in question. But if you're asking a speculative question and not stating a belief, as you seem to be doing, then, no, he shouldn't be arrested for non-crimes he wasn't involved with. He should be arrested for the crimes he was involved with. And even if he didn't commit the crime he is the worst kind of political hatchetman and it says bad things about Bush that he would have someone like Rove working for him. Rove should be fired for just being a dishonest thug.
The "poor honest and falsely accused me" pabulum coming from Rove is hilarious considering Rove is the dirtiest dirty trickster in politics. Remember the John McCain black baby smears from election 2000? That was vintage Rove, as was the push polling that led the president to victory in South Carolina. There's lots more like that.
Karl Rove got his start in direct mail political campaigns where you can still do what the politicians of old did -- tell different groups different things. For example, during the 2004 campaign against the Catholic John Kerry Rove came up with this:
http://www.jregrassroots.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t7120.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/faith/
"The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush."
So, even if everything said about Rove is a lie -- he deserves being on the end of his own tactics. It would be exactly the kind of game he plays.
http://www.bustbob.com/view.asp?ID=5
Karl Rove and Novak: They've Talked Before
Rove fired from Bush Sr's '92 campaign over leak to Novak. Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak's piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust." Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak's source.
Rove was the "only one with a motive to leak": Mosbacher says: "I said Rove is the only one with a motive to leak this. We let him go." The motive in question? Mosbacher had given Rove only a quarter of the $1 million spent on direct mail contracts for the 92 campaign; Rove, who in 1988 had the entire direct mail contract, therefore had an axe to grind with Mosbacher. Novak's column stated: "Also attending the session was political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher."
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Norm, Norm, Norm, Norm, Norm, Norm, Norm.
BPSCG pointed to a cow pattie in your reasoning and you walked over to it and stepped in it. I'll not steal his thunder though.
BPSCG pointed to a cow pattie in your reasoning and you walked over to it and stepped in it. I'll not steal his thunder though.
normdoering
Muse
- Joined
- May 29, 2005
- Messages
- 656
Rob Lister said:
Looks to me like you're the one drowning in bovine fecal matter.
Exactly what do you think this metaphorical cow dropping is?
Your lack of specifics is quite telling -- it makes your accusations quite empty.
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
normdoering said:
Okay, while we're waiting for BPSCG to chime back in let me ask you if you can link to PDF files or if you require HTML files? It's easier to read in PDF but you may need HTML. I'm sure BP can link you to either.
normdoering
Muse
- Joined
- May 29, 2005
- Messages
- 656
Rob Lister said:
I prefer HTML