-
Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
This is interesting... Was Karl Rove behind the CIA agent leak?
Quote:
But Bush's spokesman wouldn't repeat any of those assertions Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer saying his client spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified in a newspaper column.
Rove described the woman to a reporter as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, according to an e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine.
Wouldn't surprise me. It fits in with the "total war" approach Dubya has used against political rivals, even in his own party.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
*tearfully runs upstairs and rips her Karl Rove poster off her wall*
How could he?!
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Judas Priest. This almost too stupid to be true. The Sith lord Darth Rove has a horde of underlings he could have ordered to send the email. I'm amazed he'd be dumb enough to do it himself. More importantly, I'm really amazed the White House has been swearing up one side & down the other Rove had nothing to do with it, with this email (which isn't very secure) floating around out there...
Should be an interesting next couple of weeks... stay tuned sports fans.
Edit: Btw, for all those that claim Fox is under orders from Bush & Rove, you should be interested to note that they're running the story too.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
So what if Rove committed perjury in front of a grand jury. We have the precendent for that, all he has to do is apologize and surrender his law license, and be done with it. On to the book deals. Right leftists? Or do we have a double standard?
(Even before the Rove stuff started to come out, I never really understood the significance of this story. The woman was, as previously noted, an analyst and not a covert operative. It isnt covered under the statute.)
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
I'm not really sure about the statute aspect of it. Since her husband did his work internationally, the revelation posed a serious threat to her in travel. If it is not covered under the letter of the law, it must certainly have been within the spirit. As such, I have a hard time not seeing it as a treasonous act. Comparing it to lying about a personal matter in a civil case seems quite the mismatch. (Particularly since the Supreme Court should not have allowed the Witch Hunt in the first place--the laughable bit in the decision about defending oneself in a civil trial not being an undue distraction to the Presidency--which was very shortly proven 1000% wrong.)
But it is all speculation at the moment. We have to wait to see what the real evidence is.
If it does turn out to be true, then I want to know if Bush already knew but has continued to try to shield and deny...well, that seems a lot more important than a BJ to me.
As to significance: it is a clear abuse of power, by an administration that seems to relish wielding the stick against political enemies.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Nice analysis here:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...ove_and_t.html
Quote:
Did the various editors at the Times, the WaPo, and Time magazine really sit on evidence that would have incriminated Karl Rove all through last fall's campaign? What happened to the public's right to know? ...Either they are awfully dumb (possible!), or the story is not there. Or both.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
*tearfully runs upstairs and rips her Karl Rove poster off her wall*
How could he?!
~D ~:joker: ~:joker: ~D That's priceless.
Quote:
(Even before the Rove stuff started to come out, I never really understood the significance of this story. The woman was, as previously noted, an analyst and not a covert operative. It isnt covered under the statute.)
I second that lack of understanding. It was widely known in DC circles that she was a CIA agent. Some reporter even reluctantly admitted to that in an interview.... I'll try to find a link.
The email from Rove was a note of caution to a reporter. Basically saying that don't try to hitch Wilson to the Bush admin, because it was his wife, not them that chose him for the job. At least, that's what I got out of it.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Its really funny this whole thing started because a conservative wouldnt give up his source so unlike what happens when a liberal does this the media went after him and then one of their own winds up in jail. I find it very amusing.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Valerie Plame was not simply an analyst or a data cruncher. Intelligence officials said Plame worked on the spread of missiles and nuclear, biological and chemical arms, collectively known as weapons of mass destruction. She was a CIA operative dedicated to tracking person's or nation's that might try to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
Larry Johnson - a former CIA and State Department official who was a 1985 classmate of Plame's in the CIA's case officer-training program at Camp Peary, Va., known as "the Farm" - predicted that when the CIA's internal damage assessment is finished, "at the end of the day, (the harm) will be huge and some people potentially may have lost their lives."
Ray McGovern, who was for 27-years a senior analyst for the CIA, further confirms the status of Plame within the CIA. "I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know," said McGovern in a telephone conversation we had today, "that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration's first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction."
She operated as an energy analyst for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations. The Directorate of Operations is the CIA's covert arm. In 1990 and 1991, Plame was attached to an American embassy somewhere in Europe, according to address records, suggesting she may have operated under official cover for a time. The exact embassy she worked for is not being revealed, for obvious reasons. Her name doesn't appear in State Department telephone and embassy directories from that period. They may have been removed or she may have been operating under a cover name.
She used a front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The purpose of such a front is the monitoring, not only of WMD, but also ARAMCO, Saudi Arabia with their oil production and it's internal politics. The Bin-laden family also being part of the internal political makeup of Saudi Arabia. The usefullness of Brewster Jennings ended the moment Plame's identity was revealed. Brewster-Jennings & Associates was a well-established CIA proprietary company, and any other NOC (non-official cover) agents, associated with the company, along with their contacts and sources are now exposed as well.
Within hours of her name becoming common knowledge every intelligence apparatus in the world, friendly or hostile, would immediately begin investigating her, the front company, and anyone associated with it, in addition to any of her known contacts. Her sources, or indeed anyone she met with could be in danger now. Anything that Plame was involved with, any operation, any company she was supposed to be working for, any people she worked closely with, are possibly CIA assets, or at least work with CIA. They also now know to steer clear of them.
Good luck in attempting to recruit new sources, and operatives in areas where they could be threatened by such leaks.
This is treason.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
The woman was, as previously noted, an analyst and not a covert operative. It isnt covered under the statute.
I was under the impression that she WAS an operative. Not trying to cause trouble, but can you confirm that she was only an analyst? Perhaps with a link?
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Within hours of her name becoming common knowledge every intelligence apparatus in the world, friendly or hostile, would immediately begin investigating her, the front company, and anyone associated with it, in addition to any of her known contacts. Her sources, or indeed anyone she met with could be in danger now. Anything that Plame was involved with, any operation, any company she was supposed to be working for, any people she worked closely with, are possibly CIA assets, or at least work with CIA. They also now know to steer clear of them.
I find that hard to believe if the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent was already public knowledge in DC.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Now heres an article with a bit more meat to it.
Quote:
Plame, By Any Other Name
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, July 11, 2005; 1:21 PM
There is no longer any question that top presidential adviser Karl Rove is a key player in the Valerie Plame case.
In fact, what Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about Plame is apparently one of the last things special prosecutor Patrick J.Fitzgerald is trying to determine before he wraps up his investigation into whether Plame was illegally outed as a CIA agent.
Newsweek yesterday described e-mails from Cooper relating his July 2003 interview with Rove. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told The Washington Post yesterday that his client spoke to Cooper, but did not identify Plame by name. Luskin also said Fitzgerald has told him that Rove is not a target of the probe.
But let's look at what we can conclude from all this
LINK
Draw your own conclusions.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Ahem. Karl Rove did what he did to punish Joe Wilson for saying the Bush admin. was wrong. To deny that is naive.
Furthermore the fact that she might be an analyst or whatever else is meaningless, if you consider the motive of Rove in getting her name in print. I'm sure he didn't do it for nothing, and I'm sure he won't be persecuted for publishing information already 'out there'. That's a stupid argument.
:embarassed:
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Ahem. Karl Rove did what he did to punish Joe Wilson for saying the Bush admin. was wrong. To deny that is naive.
Furthermore the fact that she might be an analyst or whatever else is meaningless, if you consider the motive of Rove in getting her name in print. I'm sure he didn't do it for nothing, and I'm sure he won't be persecuted for publishing information already 'out there'. That's a stupid argument.
:embarassed:
I had no idea you were on his hotline and had insight into his thought process. What's naive is you assuming that because you want to nail Rove, the whole story must be true. Do you really think the Prince of Darkness, as you on the Left like to refer to him, the evil genius who convinced the country to vote for that schlep, Bush, not once but twice, would be dumb enough to send an email to a reporter for Time Magazine saying "Psst! Joe Wilson's wife is a spy. But don't tell anyone I'm the one who told you!"
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Do you really think the Prince of Darkness, as you on the Left like to refer to him, the evil genius who convinced the country to vote for that schlep, Bush, not once but twice, would be dumb enough to send an email to a reporter for Time Magazine saying "Psst! Joe Wilson's wife is a spy. But don't tell anyone I'm the one who told you!"
I don't know much about the specifics of this case, but in some ways it reminds me of some of the shenanagins that our New Labour "spin doctors" have got up to in the UK. Our own "Prince of Darkness", Peter Mandelson, managed to get himself sacked twice for seemingly "dumb" actions. They are only human, working under a lot of pressure in a very fast moving environment. They are used to operating under the cloak of anonymity and perhaps to cutting corners to get things done. Those perceived to have a lot of power like Mandelson and Rove may perhaps be prone to delusions of grandeur.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Rove is clearly responsible for outing a deep cover agent.
and he did it in a show of force, to hurt a perceived enemy and remind others who might oppose the current admin that they, too, could be hurt.
He will escape criminal prosecution (what he did doesn't qualify as a crime under the law due to several factors, none of which can be proved intentional criminal behavior).
Bush owes him too much (and he knows too much about Bush and his *coughs* laundry *cough*) to ever be ousted.
In this episode I think we will see the lack of responsibility and accountability in this admin.
If Rove is 'let go' it'll prolly be a sham where in reality he goes to work plotting the Jeb's election in 2008.
ichi :bow:
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
I tend to think your right about eerything except this
Quote:
If Rove is 'let go' it'll prolly be a sham where in reality he goes to work plotting the Jeb's election in 2008.
Jeb aint a gona run yet. The country wouldnt elect another Bush so soon.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
George Herbert Walker Bush still has one term he could legally serve
or maybe they'll reanimate Reagan
Tom DeLay clearly isn't human, so he's out
Teh Arnold is too left coast
OMG, Laura??!!
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Jeb already said he won't. :embarassed:
:bigcry:
I'm telling you, clone Teddy Roosevelt. I think he'd be a great Republican candidate. ~:cheers:
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Could you Imagine Laura Bush vs Madame Hillary? I know where my vote would go.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Could you Imagine Laura Bush vs Madame Hillary? I know where my vote would go.
I would have to go with you, or move to Canada
Gah!
I will not sleep well tonite
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Independent of who leaked the information what should the penalty be?
Just pretend it was Hillary Clinton for those on the right...
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I find that hard to believe if the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent was already public knowledge in DC.
It was considered to be of sufficient concern to the CIA that they referred the matter to the Justice Department. Do you have a source for this "public knowledge"?
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Independent of who leaked the information what should the penalty be?
Just pretend it was Hillary Clinton for those on the right...
Depends on what her role was. If she was a field agent, the leaker (whomever it is) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If she was an internal analyst, that's not protected information. I'd say no penalty in that case.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
It's a little bit of a hype everytime somebody tells government secrets in US. Maybe it's time for the US government to abandon the "secret policies" and just have everything public in the first place ?
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
If we assume the worst, there are two defenses that spring to mind for Mr. Rove:
(1) He never uttered Mrs. Plame's full name. I seriously doubt that will stand the laugh test.
(2) He knew she was a C.I.A. employee, but he didn't know she was a covert asset. The law only covers covert operatives, and if he didn't know, or can plausibly deny that he knew, he might be able to save his bacon.
That's all I can think of on short notice. Didn't we used to have a couple of lawyers rolling around the Backroom? They might have more light to shed on the subject.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Well, I still haven't seen any evidence to support the assertion that she was just an analyst, not an agent.
The fact that a criminal investigation has been launched would seem to suggest that she was of such a status that outing her would be a crime. Why else would an investigation be warranted?
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
democratic penis envy...
and about two years too late guys...
thank you drive through...
:OP
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Scott McClellan getting murdered up there today:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000977098
Quote:
Q: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?
MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point.
And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.
The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.
Q: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?
MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium.
The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium....
Q: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, 'We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation'?
MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow.
And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy. Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.
Q: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not?
MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry’s question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.
I think that’s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.
Q: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?
MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.
Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?
MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.
Q: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?
MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...
Q: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.
Q: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?
MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?
MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.
QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.
Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?
MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.....
And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.
I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.
Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.
MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them.
Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?
MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.
Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?
MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.
Q: Well, we are going to keep asking them.
Where's Ari Fleischer at these days?
~:eek:
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
The fact that a criminal investigation has been launched would seem to suggest that she was of such a status that outing her would be a crime.
Correct. Publicly outing an analyst is not a crime. Airing the identity of a covert asset is a crime. For those who assert that Mrs. Plame was an analyst, I am curious about how they've arrived at that conclusion.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
When columnist Robert Novak reported that ex-Ambassador Joe Wilson had been sent to look into the claim that Iraq had sought yellowcake from Niger because his wife, a CIA analyst, had recommended him, it was the Big Media that demanded the Bush White House be turned upside down to find the source who had outed Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0712/p09s01-coop.html
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
It would seem that Mr. Buchanan either has his facts wrong or meant "analyst" in a sweeping sense, not the C.I.A.-specific terminology. If Mrs. Plame were an analyst there would be no special prosecutor. No law would have been broken.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurmania
No law would have been broken.
Erm, that's been pointed out quite a few times now. Looks like he did it (in spirit, at least) and Bush will lose a few poll points over it.
(Is this some brilliantly devised scheme to get the US population to hate Rove more than GWB?! :idea: )
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
This isnt going to go anywhere. He says he didnt know she was an operative only that she worled at the CIA. He also never mentioned her name. Yes its tacky but dont expect him to go anywhere. If he didnt know she was an operative he can hardly be accused of intentionaly blowing her cover. Was it common knowledge that she worked for the CIA as an analyst but not as an operative. If so hes off the hook for sure.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Its really funny this whole thing started because a conservative wouldnt give up his source so unlike what happens when a liberal does this the media went after him and then one of their own winds up in jail. I find it very amusing.
Its a liberal in jail. Or didn't you know that?
BTW, where is our friend Novack in all this? After all he was the fisrt one to report it. Must be nice to have friends in high places. Where you can start something and let them blame others to finish it.
:balloon2:
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Its a liberal in jail. Or didn't you know that?
Read my post and what you quoted. Thats what I said. Or didnt you know that?
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
She was not an analyst.
The Directorate of Intelligence is where the analysts work. The Directorate of Operations is responsible for front line espionage.
Within the Central Intelligence Agency, covert action is housed inside the Directorate of Operations, headed by a deputy director for operations (DDO). This directorate consist of, among other subdivisions, a unit for political and economic covert action (the Covert Action Staff, or CAS), for paramilitary (PM) covert action (the Special Operations unit), for counterintelligence (the CI staff [CIS]), and for several geographic desks responsible for the collection of foreign intelligence. For our purposes, we will examine the Special Operations unit.
The Directorate of Operations also houses special groups for conducting counterterrorism and counternarcotics, for tracking nuclear proliferation, and other tasks. Administrated by the DO, the PM group (Special Operations) maintains an elite cadre (Special Activities Staff) that are are highly skilled in weaponry; covert transport of personnel and material by air, sea, and land.; guerrilla warfare; the use of explosives; and escape and evasion techniques. They are prepared to respond quickly to a myriad of possible needs, from parachute drops and communications support to assistance with counternarcotics operations and defector infiltration. For PM tasks (special operations missions) and its other responsibilities, the Special Operations staff attempts to recruit assets with the appropriate specialized skills, though the geographic desks remain the principal units involved in the recruitment of personnel in so-called denied areas (Libya, Iraq, Iran, etc.). Special operations also provides special air, ground, maritime and training support for the Agency's intelligence gathering operations.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
She was not an analyst.
Thats not what Im asking. Im asking is it well known or known at all that she worked for the CIA in any capacity. If so then hes off the hook.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I find that hard to believe if the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent was already public knowledge in DC.
Either you have been listening to RUSH, to long - or you accept the party line, and no longer believe in America as a democratic society (but, a theocracy).
Accepting the party line that giving up the name of a CIA agent is acceptable, because their possition in it is unimportant - is like saying that it is OK to give up an undercover drug agent (or informant), because they don't know the whole picture of what the administration's intent is. OK, sorta makes sense. [...]
(edited by Ser Clegane)
[...] Or, just agrueing a misguided point of view? Some times it can be hard to destinguish ... so, think about it a moment. Then, confess that Rove betrayed us, as a nation ... a friend on the principle that his Prez is never wrong ... and that he intended to embarrass someone for showing the prez was wrong.
How hard is that to accept? Plus, he put the man and his wife in harms way. How bad is that? Were we to call him a liberal would it make it easier for you to accept his betrayal?
:balloon2:
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Accepting the party line
You say that and they go off on a rant giving the democratic party line. Hypocricy at its best.
You can bet theres nothing to this story. He had no knowledge that she was an agent case closed. Its a democratic witch hunt and your following a pack of dogs. The more of the story that comes out the better it looks for Rove. In order for it to be a crime he would have to have known she was an agent and intentionally blown her cover. Theres nothing here to make such a case and thats why he isnt a target even of this investigation.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Thats not what Im asking. Im asking is it well known or known at all that she worked for the CIA in any capacity. If so then hes off the hook.
And I am asking where the idea of her being well known as a CIA asset comes from? If it is indeed so well known then point out the source, and this discussion becomes moot.
The knowledge that she worked for the CIA had to be known by someone or she would never have had her cover blown.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I had no idea you were on his hotline and had insight into his thought process. What's naive is you assuming that because you want to nail Rove, the whole story must be true. Do you really think the Prince of Darkness, as you on the Left like to refer to him, the evil genius who convinced the country to vote for that schlep, Bush, not once but twice, would be dumb enough to send an email to a reporter for Time Magazine saying "Psst! Joe Wilson's wife is a spy. But don't tell anyone I'm the one who told you!"
Er, once.... the majority voted for Gore, the first time. You know? or, maybe you bought into the new reality?
Still wondering where the man that first reported all this fits into the picture - Novack. Of course he is protected, like Rush, and the other "if they agree leave thems alone".
Imagine, we got ourselves a Prez that feels so confident about his position that he can insult the heads of states of lesser pontates by calling them "pieces of work". Or, did you miss that one last week? Bush43, has as much idea of what international politics is about as he does the presidency.
:balloon2:
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
And I am asking where the idea of her being well known as a CIA asset comes from? If it is indeed so well known then point out the source, and this discussion becomes moot.
Once more it all comes down to whether he new she was an agent or not. All indications are that he did not. If that is so theres no where to go with this. All the rest is just the media and the dems going after Rove.
Even thought the prosecuter in this case keeps sayng Rove is not a target of the investigation some people cant help but act like he is.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I tend to think your right about eerything except this
Jeb aint a gona run yet. The country wouldnt elect another Bush so soon.
Jebby got to much in his closet to ever run. He got his bro the presiedency, and for him to ever attempt to run would expose his complicancy in the crimes committed. They would both go to jail. Jeb, can never run for office again, and he is using the expanation that his wife (the clepto) says no. Also, that he has a son of military age that is avoiding the military like it were the plague, maybe another reason.
Then again, name a Republican congressan's kid in uniform - maybe one ... out of +350.
Who could tell, with all their war talk and justification to support ROVE.
:balloon2:
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
How convenient that the number one Bush lackey let slip that the wife of an Ambassador who had gone against the Bush company line was a CIA agent.
Of course Rove knew what he was doing, he did it intentionally and with malice. But it will be impossible to prove that in court, so no responsibility will be taken. And he considers himself above the law, so he won't do the right thing. Very revealing about the true morals inside the circle.
As for the idea that this is just the Dems jumping on anything they can to hurt Bush, can you imagine how the Republicans would have howled had one of Clinton's minions done the same thing. OMG, what hypocrisy, the Republicans would have wet their drawers screaming how unpatriotic it was.
ichi :bow:
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
How convenient that the number one Bush lackey let slip that the wife of an Ambassador who had gone against the Bush company line was a CIA agent.
Very
Quote:
Of course Rove knew what he was doing, he did it intentionally and with malice. But it will be impossible to prove that in court, so no responsibility will be taken. And he considers himself above the law, so he won't do the right thing. Very revealing about the true morals inside the circle.
Of course
Quote:
As for the idea that this is just the Dems jumping on anything they can to hurt Bush, can you imagine how the Republicans would have howled had one of Clinton's minions done the same thing. OMG, what hypocrisy, the Republicans would have wet their drawers screaming how unpatriotic it was.
To be sure.
Its a good thing Bush brought a new tone to Washington.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Could you Imagine Laura Bush vs Madame Hillary? I know where my vote would go.
I have much less respect for Laura Bush than Hillary. I had a neutral opinion of Laura, until I heard an interview with her during the last convention. Paraphrasing, I got out of that she had been told by Barbara Bush never to criticize Dubya, and was sticking to it. The one time she had made a critical comment about one of Dubya's speeches he had driven into the garage wall. It said a lot to me about both of them. Very sad, and I pity her in a way. I don't think she is unintelligent, but I don't have much respect for someone who can be the partner to the president and yet have almost no impact on his thinking. It certainly isn't a sort of marriage I can understand. I consider my wife my greatest asset (not in a property sense, of course) even when we are diametrically opposed on issues. Of course, unlike Dubya I think gathering dissenting opinions and trying to understand them is a good idea, rather than just assuming I'm infallible and sitting on the right hand of Jesus or something.
I always found the disrespect shown by the right wingers toward Hillary downright amazing. From the earliest days, the hatred was palpable and mean spirited in the extreme. So called "gentlemen" speaking of her as they did provided quite a bit of insight into their characters and their fear of women who had their own ideas.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
You say that and they go off on a rant giving the democratic party line. Hypocricy at its best.
You can bet theres nothing to this story. He had no knowledge that she was an agent case closed. Its a democratic witch hunt and your following a pack of dogs. The more of the story that comes out the better it looks for Rove. In order for it to be a crime he would have to have known she was an agent and intentionally blown her cover. Theres nothing here to make such a case and thats why he isnt a target even of this investigation.
Again, the hypocracy arguement. What is it with you guys? Ever since Redleg introduced it, it seems to be one of your primary arguements. It never had a focus, even when he used it, and it really is nothing more than the common accussation that if I'm wrong so are you. Say what?
When, a President surpasses the creeds established by his predicessors. When a President confesses to never having made a mistake. When a President exceeds the law of the land, ignores the constitution, uses legal eagles to justify ignoring international laws - he is no longer a President. He is his own God. He has failed his responsibility to his nation. He has failed his Presidency.
Bush43, has failed us. Maybe not intentionally, but through his governance - by surrounding himslef with yes-men and yes-women. By, ignoring the 51% that voted against him. By believing that he was right and all that opposed him were wrong -, simply because they differed. Simply because.
Imagine a moron claiming he was going to unify the nation (and had a maxed out opportunity to do so - 9/11) that went out instead to solidify a right-wing-satanic possition? Which is what he did.
Of course, he said it was for "Christmas" (er). but you get my point.
~D
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Paraphrasing, I got out of that she had been told by Barbara Bush never to criticize Dubya, and was sticking to it. The one time she had made a critical comment about one of Dubya's speeches he had driven into the garage wall. It said a lot to me about both of them. Very sad, and I pity her in a way. I don't think she is unintelligent, but I don't have much respect for someone who can be the partner to the president and yet have almost no impact on his thinking.
Wel its no wonder you like Madame Hilary then.
Quote:
I always found the disrespect shown by the right wingers toward Hillary downright amazing.
Why? As a New Yorker I hate the carpet baggin B-tch.
Quote:
From the earliest days, the hatred was palpable and mean spirited in the extreme.
Theres a lot there to hate.
I suppose you have more faith in a woman who dosent care that her husband is running around sexually using women and in fact facilitates it.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Its a good thing Bush brought a new tone to Washington.
And what exactly would that be? Perhaps it is: "My daddy was president therefore I inherited the office and don't have to follow laws meant for others. I'm a spoiled rich kid of no real talent, I was AWOL during Vietnam, did cocaine, beat women, got a DWI, am arrogant as hell, and don't have to answer to anyone. I'm annointed by God and am a righteous president who can do no wrong." That's the tone I've seen. My wife and I noticed it back when he was governor...and it was reinforced when she actually met him. After shaking his hand, she said to me, "That man has never done an honest day's work in his life."
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Once more it all comes down to whether he new she was an agent or not. All indications are that he did not. If that is so theres no where to go with this. All the rest is just the media and the dems going after Rove.
Even thought the prosecuter in this case keeps sayng Rove is not a target of the investigation some people cant help but act like he is.
Plame didn't have an official job with the CIA, so I do not really believe that Karl Rove didn't clue into the obvious. He had to have known she was undercover, or he is a serious moron.
The only way he couldn't have known she was NOC (non-official cover), is if someone else leaked the information to him and that someone is the individual who broke the law. Her cover was classified and that means the CIA will have the documents to prove who had the required clearances.
It is likely that Lewis Libby and Dick Cheney worked with Plame on the WMD issue (CIA's Non-Proliferation Center), and if Karl Rove was ever privy to that he is in big trouble. It wouldn't matter if he was cleared to know, or not.
He committed a crime by revealing, or confirming her covert status, or someone else did! Valerie Plame was a CIA operative working on weapons of mass destruction. Nice to know that Karl Rove is doing his best to help Osama Bin Laden get through to New York again.
At the very least Karl Rove used his position of trust in the government to do what he know was not in his country's best interest. He is not a traitor in the same sense that Bill Clinton didn't have sex with Monica Lewinski!
"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
-George H. W. Bush
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
And what exactly would that be?
That would be I was being sarcastic.
Quote:
"My daddy was president therefore I inherited the office and don't have to follow laws meant for others.
I believe he was elected not once but twice.
Quote:
I'm a spoiled rich kid of no real talent
Talent enough to be president of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen.
Quote:
I was AWOL during Vietnam
False
Only an accusation. Besides I dont see that as any big deal. I bet Clinton has tried that and much more .
Who did he beat. At least he wasnt accused of raping them in any event.
Well that certainly disqualifies him from holding public office.
Quote:
am arrogant as hell, and don't have to answer to anyone. I'm annointed by God and am a righteous president who can do no wrong."That's the tone I've seen
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I see no such thing.
For a man who usually makes reasoned and inteligent posts Im afraid your letting your hatred of the man get the better of you.
Quote:
My wife and I noticed it back when he was governor...and it was reinforced when she actually met him. After shaking his hand, she said to me, "That man has never done an honest day's work in his life."
And your probably correct. But do you think Kerry, Kennedy or Hilary have either?
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Do you have a source for this "public knowledge"?
Perhaps not. I've looked at the transcript from Hardball that it supposedly came out in and can't find it.
Here is the link to (as far as I can tell) the transcript in question if anyone else wants to pour over it. The closest I could find was them talking about how all of the "Plame" articles, including Novak's cite multiple anonymous government sources. :shrug:
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
You say that and they go off on a rant giving the democratic party line. Hypocricy at its best.
You can bet theres nothing to this story. He had no knowledge that she was an agent case closed. Its a democratic witch hunt and your following a pack of dogs. The more of the story that comes out the better it looks for Rove. In order for it to be a crime he would have to have known she was an agent and intentionally blown her cover. Theres nothing here to make such a case and thats why he isnt a target even of this investigation.
Are you looking for an award for the most naive poster around?
Just assume it was not happening in the US, and there is no party line going over there, would you really have the same opinion?
Don't you feel intellectually dishonest? Just a bit?
When I think the same exact people were all over the case for a blowjob and an unconsequential lie... And that was for a presidential impeachement. Now covering a security leak, which is a bit more serious. Oh, the irony.
I guess principles only apply to others.
How many of Plame contacts are now lost? What credibility the CIA got left? If you were to help the CIA, would you still do it knowing that any dumb politician in Washington would sell your liaison name for the sake of political convenience, very possibly endangering you in the process?
This case is also a problem for the media. Although not as important as the intelligence damage done, there is an issue with media not being able to cover its source (which is too bad for M. Rove)...
On that aspect, I found that quote disturbing:
Quote:
Did the various editors at the Times, the WaPo, and Time magazine really sit on evidence that would have incriminated Karl Rove all through last fall's campaign? What happened to the public's right to know? ...Either they are awfully dumb (possible!), or the story is not there. Or both.
Hell, yes they would have sit on it. If they ever want to have story again, they better protect their source. That's journalism 101 and for sure it's not dumb. They gave the source after a controversial supreme court decision.
There is one sure point; I would not trust that so called analysis (or well, just usual biaised blog) as far as keeping source is concerned... Looks like anyone giving that person some anonymous information is going to be disappointed ~D
I don't think Rove will be successfully prosecuted. I don't believe him innocent, but that says how much trust I got in US (or any other...) justice for those cases.
I hope a prosecutor will have the balls to pleasantly surprise me.
Louis,
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I believe he was elected not once but twice.
Nope, he was only elected once. The first election was a sham. He lost the popular vote, and he lost Florida. Make all the excuses you want, but it is true. The Florida count was not valid and it did not represent the intent of those who actually voted. I have not, nor will I ever consider his first administration as being legitimate.
Quote:
Talent enough to be president of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen.
So was Nixon. Dubya has never earned anything on merit, nothing. He sells snake oil to the gullible, and they buy it. It is a bizarre mass hallucination. I look forward to reading the historical assessment of Dubya, it will be most unkind toward his legacy.
Definitely TRUE. He can't produce a single witness to prove he served his last two years or so, despite various groups offering $50,000 dollar rewards for such evidence. He failed to report when was ordered to, and he failed to take his physicals. His daddy swung him a Guard spot in the first place. He was a mediocre pilot at best, and a discipline problem with his sense of privilege. To me, he represents the antithesis of American meritocracy and achievement!
Quote:
Only an accusation. Besides I dont see that as any big deal. I bet Clinton has tried that and much more .
Clinton at least made an admission of drug use (as weak as it was.) Dubya has dodge answering his. I don't recall Clinton as a member of the armed services during war time doing drugs. Of course, in some ways neither was Dubya, he was AWOL and did not bother to even maintain his flight status through a simple physical. We were paying him though. And I love the redirect to Clinton trying to use the "two wrongs make a right" approach. Clinton was 10 times the President Dubya has been. Clinton's failings were of a personal nature, but Dubya's are failures of leadership and abuse of power.
Quote:
Who did he beat. At least he wasnt accused of raping them in any event.
I can't recall, I've seen some stuff referring to the court transcript though. Wife beaters are one of the lowest levels of scum in my book.
Quote:
And your probably correct. But do you think Kerry, Kennedy or Hilary have either?
It's more of a case of false advertising...passing oneself off as something you are not. Dubya is a fraud.
An early example: His "dove hunting trip" during the Texas governor campaign was a real hoot. He shot a protected bird, a killdeer, then obliviously mocked dumbfounded reporters for not congratulating him on a "nice shot." They then pointed out that he had illegally shot a bird and damage control started...
Take off the rose colored glasses and you can see right through him.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
Er, once.... the majority voted for Gore, the first time. You know? or, maybe you bought into the new reality?
Still wondering where the man that first reported all this fits into the picture - Novack. Of course he is protected, like Rush, and the other "if they agree leave thems alone".
Imagine, we got ourselves a Prez that feels so confident about his position that he can insult the heads of states of lesser pontates by calling them "pieces of work". Or, did you miss that one last week? Bush43, has as much idea of what international politics is about as he does the presidency.
:balloon2:
That's right Khafir, I'm so stupid, I actually follow the elecoral law on the matter. Is it possible for you to take sides in an issue without launching into bitter insults against anyone who disagrees with you? It doesn't speak well for how well adjusted your ego is if everyone must constantly agree with every last word you say.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Nope, he was only elected once. The first election was a sham. He lost the popular vote, and he lost Florida. Make all the excuses you want, but it is true. The Florida count was not valid and it did not represent the intent of those who actually voted. I have not, nor will I ever consider his first administration as being legitimate.
Not you too, Red. I'm amazed, this story has ginned up all the worst on your guys' side. Look, if the Florida election was a sham, why would the New York Times & USA Today come out and say there was no way Gore could have won Florida?
Do you know how Gore would have won Florida? The only scenario that worked was for him to exclued all absentee ballots, not just ones delivered late. That's why he and Daly toyed with that idea for a while, even though there was no grounds for doing so. Yeah, screw the military, just let us win...
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
And what exactly would that be? Perhaps it is: "My daddy was president therefore I inherited the office and don't have to follow laws meant for others. I'm a spoiled rich kid of no real talent, I was AWOL during Vietnam, did cocaine, beat women, got a DWI, am arrogant as hell, and don't have to answer to anyone. I'm annointed by God and am a righteous president who can do no wrong." That's the tone I've seen. My wife and I noticed it back when he was governor...and it was reinforced when she actually met him. After shaking his hand, she said to me, "That man has never done an honest day's work in his life."
Well Red, I'll give you credit. You and your wife definitely have the Howard Dean talking points down pat. You're right, we've all never done an honest day's work in our life. When I have a 65, 70 hour work week, that's not real work. It can't be, because I vote Republican. I must be playing Baldur's Gate or something.
Okay, if that's where this discussion has gone, I'm done. You and Khafir... you're right! Republicans, and anyone who votes for them... we're shiftless, we're lazy, we're dishonest, we hate women, the poor, minorities, gays and anybody who doesn't agree with us. You got us!!! Although bonus points for being at least a little subtle. Have fun with this argument. Personally, I thought you at least had better arguments then remolding Dean's screeds 'they've never done an honest day's work in their lives" indeed. :no:
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
I think it's unfair to compare Red with Kafir's lunacy. His comment seemed aimed at the President and I share some of his view.
Anyway, back on topic.
Looks like the left is going to get a trophy. Rove shouldn't have opened his mouth, and Bush should ease him out of the White House.
Of course, that won't be good enough. The press will go down and start hounding every personal conversation Rove has with anyone associated with the GOP; meanwhile the FBI will continue tracking down Al Qaeda sleeper cells and the Armed Forces will continue rehabillitating two countries that have been abused by various tyrants for the past three decades.
At least the media has its priorities straight though. If your beloved Democrats can't win an election on their ideas, trump up some charges against the Republicans' chief strategist.
It still wouldn't surprise me at all if Matt Cooper's "notes" are a complete fabrication.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Prol, I don't think you realize. That comment on the surface was aimed at the President, but it was a subtle play on words that really was a replay of Howard Dean's slam on all of us.
When asked why Election Day should be made a national holiday, Dean answered "Our people need the day off cause they can't work a full day, then wait in line for 4 hours. It's easy for the Republicans to vote. They've never worked an honest day in their life".
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Talk about going too far with something! If Rove leaked a covert operative's name to the press, that's very, very bad, and he should be punished. But this is too much:
Quote:
KARL ROVE: WORSE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN
... As far as we know, no one on what passes for the "left" (which would be the center-right anywhere else) has betrayed the United States in the GWOT. No anti-Bush progressive has made common cause with Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or any other officially designated "terrorist" group. No American liberal has handed over classified information or worked to undermine the CIA.
But it now appears that Karl Rove, GOP golden boy, has done exactly that.
Perhaps there should be a corollary to the old Internet rule that any discussion in which anyone is compared to Hitler or the Nazis has reached the end of its useful life. Certainly, any essay in which someone who isn't a member of Al Qaeda is compared to OBL is on the fast track to being complete junk.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Are you looking for an award for the most naive poster around?
Just assume it was not happening in the US, and there is no party line going over there, would you really have the same opinion?
Don't you feel intellectually dishonest? Just a bit?
Are you looking for one as the best spinner around. My position isnt that Rove didnt do anythiing wrong its that their not going to ne able to pin anything on him. If you think they will I suggest your the naive one. If you look you will see I agreed with Ichi on this point a number of times.
Quote:
Nope, he was only elected once. The first election was a sham.
Why because we went by the rules or because Gore acted like a cry baby when he lost.
Quote:
He lost the popular vote,
Yup though he may not have if the networks didnt anounce florida for Gore before the polls even closed there. Besides that thats not how we elect a president.
Quote:
and he lost Florida.
No he won Florida and won it in every recount by every news agency that dug into the matter. Im afraid your hatred of Bush is getting the better of you again here.
Quote:
I have not, nor will I ever consider his first administration as being legitimate.
Well the rest of us and the world will have to get by without your support for them then suppose.
For the most part Nixon was a great president. In fact if not for watergate you would probably think he was one of the best republican presidents. He was very liberal in many ways.
Quote:
Definitely TRUE. He can't produce a single witness to prove he served his last two years or so,
Im afraid he did but once again your hatred has blinded you. Its all been covered here to death.
Quote:
I don't recall Clinton as a member of the armed services during war time doing drugs.
Of course not he planned to go to Canada if drated.
Quote:
Clinton was 10 times the President Dubya has been.
Clinton was one of the most dispicable persons ever to hold the office.
Quote:
Clinton's failings were of a personal nature
Yopu call sending missle technology to China a personal nature?
So your making more unfounded accusations. I can link you to Clintons accusation of rape with no problem however.
Quote:
It's more of a case of false advertising...passing oneself off as something you are not. Dubya is a fraud.
Most politicians are frauds as was Clinton. Why do you hold Bush to a higher standard?
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Well Red, I'll give you credit. You and your wife definitely have the Howard Dean talking points down pat.
Funny, I've never paid much attention to Dean. I try to work things out more on my own, rather than unquestioningly swallowing partisan propaganda from either side.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Funny, I've never paid much attention to Dean. I try to work things out more on my own, rather than unquestioningly swallowing partisan propaganda from either side.
Really, then why do you still think Bush lost Florida when no examination of the ballots showed that? I'd like to know how you worked it out on your own when there's no evidence to support it. Several large media organizations looked into it and couldn't find a way to say the vote should have came out for Gore. If you know different, lets see links.... I'm so tired of that myth. Yes, he lost the popular vote, and he won the electoral vote- the one that matters.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Most politicians are frauds as was Clinton. Why do you hold Bush to a higher standard?
Higher standard? How about holding him to ANY standard? I can't find any he measures up to.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Really, then why do you still think Bush lost Florida when no examination of the ballots showed that? I'd like to know how you worked it out on your own when there's no evidence to support it.
Truly, this canard was laid to rest sometime ago.
Red, have you ever even read Bush v Gore? Do you have the faintest idea of what was decided?
Bush v Gore was an Equal Rights case, nothing more. The Court did not select Bush as President, it merely held that if any of the votes were to be recounted, all of the votes had to be recounted. Once they made their ruling, Gore threw in the towel.
(Bush v Gore is the perfect example of strict Constitutionalism.)
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Truly, this canard was laid to rest sometime ago.
Red, have you ever even read Bush v Gore? Do you have the faintest idea of what was decided?
Bush v Gore was an Equal Rights case, nothing more. The Court did not select Bush as President, it merely held that if any of the votes were to be recounted, all of the votes had to be recounted. Once they made their ruling, Gore threw in the towel.
(Bush v Gore is the perfect example of strict Constitutionalism.)
The Court voted 7-2 to end the recount on the grounds that differing standards in different counties constituted an equal protection violation, and 5-4 that no new recount with uniform standards could be conducted.
I never had a problem with the full recount--I always felt that was the appropriate thing to do. I dug through the actual vote counts and looked at things in detail. What I found is that the problem ballots in those key counties easily decided the election. The Buchanan numbers were an absolute clincher back when I looked at it. The difficulty was in establishing criteria for the recount. Clearly, had the ballot in certain areas not been so badly flawed, there would have been little controversy, and Dubya would be back in Crawford.
Considering the will of people who voted in the election was not done in Florida, or in the nation as a whole, the election was invalid. One can do legal wrangling to justify it, but it was wrong.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
I never had a problem with the full recount--I always felt that was the appropriate thing to do. I dug through the actual vote counts and looked at things in detail. What I found is that the problem ballots in those key counties easily decided the election. The Buchanan numbers were an absolute clincher back when I looked at it. The difficulty was in establishing criteria for the recount. Clearly, had the ballot in certain areas not been so badly flawed, there would have been little controversy, and Dubya would be back in Crawford.
Well then you must have access to things that all the proffesional reporters didnt then as none of them came to that conclusion. Again adress the fact that Florida was called for Gore an hour before the polls in the panhandle, a conservtive bastion there, had been closed and many conservatives didnt bother to vote thinking it was over.
Quote:
Considering the will of people who voted in the election was not done in Florida, or in the nation as a whole, the election was invalid
Maybe you could use a session with Saturnus ~D Theres nothing to back up your claims. Please provide some proof other than its what you think.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Considering the will of people who voted in the election was not done in Florida, or in the nation as a whole, the election was invalid. One can do legal wrangling to justify it, but it was wrong.
At least if you were a Gore supporter. ~;)
Do you have any links to your "studies"? I'd like to review them. Standards on what is considered a valid ballot were established before the election. Just because your guy didn't win doesnt mean you can change the standards after the votes have been cast.
People pouring over pregnant and hanging chads trying to "interpret" voter intent or if they really meant to vote for Gore even if they marked Buchanan is absurd.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
At least if you were a Gore supporter. ~;)
Do you have any links to your "studies"? I'd like to review them. Standards on what is considered a valid ballot were established before the election. Just because your guy didn't win doesnt mean you can change the standards after the votes have been cast.
People pouring over pregnant and hanging chads trying to "interpret" voter intent or if they really meant to vote for Gore even if they marked Buchanan is absurd.
And that is one of the things the court struck down in their decision - a poll counter can not determine intent of the voter - the ballot must speak for itself.
Another one of the issues the "Gore" crowd had with the court's decision.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Well then you must have access to things that all the proffesional reporters didnt then as none of them came to that conclusion. Again adress the fact that Florida was called for Gore an hour before the polls in the panhandle, a conservtive bastion there, had been closed and many conservatives didnt bother to vote thinking it was over.
Maybe you could use a session with Saturnus ~D Theres nothing to back up your claims. Please provide some proof other than its what you think.
Quite the opposite. I dug through the numbers county by county to reach a conclusion. There were quite a few vote counts done by reporters that gave different results with Gore winning. If you look at the spoiled ballot/double vote issue and demographics, Gore's lead was huge.
I don't have access to the numbers anymore--I can't find any of the old links open, but I do remember spending hours sifting through the numbers to test the various claims before reaching a conclusion. I haven't looked at this since shortly after the election.
I can't find the most recent poll on the issue, but I recall one from only a few months ago showing that something like 30+ percent of us still don't agree that the 2000 election was valid.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Any vote that came back for a Republican, even if it had a wide margin, was going to be argued by 30+ percent of the population. You guys did it again in Ohio in 2004. The concept of graceful loser is unknown on your side.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Quite the opposite. I dug through the numbers county by county to reach a conclusion. There were quite a few vote counts done by reporters that gave different results with Gore winning. If you look at the spoiled ballot/double vote issue and demographics, Gore's lead was huge.
And that is what the supreme court ruled on in discounting the vote - the poll counter can not determine voter intent - regardless of how many times it is brought up. The voter invalidated his/her vote when they punched two names.
Quote:
I don't have access to the numbers anymore--I can't find any of the old links open, but I do remember spending hours sifting through the numbers to test the various claims before reaching a conclusion. I haven't looked at this since shortly after the election.
Again if all you looked at eas spoiled or double voted ballots - the issue again is mote - since the voter spoiled their vote - not anyone or anything else.
Quote:
I can't find the most recent poll on the issue, but I recall one from only a few months ago showing that something like 30+ percent of us still don't agree that the 2000 election was valid.
There were some that felt the 1992 election when Clinton was elected was not valid - and it didn't make them right either now did it?
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
The concept of graceful loser is unknown on your side.
And as we all know, Republicans never sue over contested elections.
What does any of this have to do with Karl Rove?
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurmania
What does any of this have to do with Karl Rove?
Virtually nothing. Just alot of us are sick of still hearing the unelected presidency myth bandied about after 5 years. ~;)
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
(Bush v Gore is the perfect example of strict Constitutionalism.)
Strict Constitutionalism: Any example of a court decision that pleases Republicans.
Judicial Activism: Any example of a court decision that angers Republicans.
~;)
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurmania
Touche' :bow:
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Strict Constitutionalism: Any example of a court decision that pleases Republicans.
Judicial Activism: Any example of a court decision that angers Republicans.
~;)
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
No apology necessary. I'm not a Republican, nor an offended one.
Saying the '00 election was the result of some sort of crime is like when people say the war in Iraq is illegal. It's baseless.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Saying the '00 election was the result of some sort of crime
I'm not saying it was a crime. But Dubya didn't win the vote. He did win the court cases (by a single vote, meaning 1 person in effect decided the election.) You can try and dress it up all you want, but it was and is an outrage. Personally, I think the whole Florida electoral vote should have either been rejected or split. However, I don't know of a legal solution that would have allowed it. The all or nothing approach made no sense with such a badly flawed ballot.
However, I still look at the 2000 election as perfect illustration of the methods not mattering to GOP, as long as the result suits them. I remember some talk of Florida rigging the electors if the court ruling and recount went against them. Yah, democracy, they've heard of it.
-
Re: Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...
Quote:
Strict Constitutionalism: Any example of a court decision that pleases Republicans.
Judicial Activism: Any example of a court decision that angers Republicans.
Talk about rehtoric. Of course this is all made up in your head. I defy you to give an example of conservative judicial activism by SCOTUS recently.
Quote:
But Dubya didn't win the vote.
Yes he did. He won the electoral vote and thats the one that counts. I could more easily claim that Nixon won the 1960 election.
Quote:
. He did win the court cases (by a single vote, meaning 1 person in effect decided the election.)
Considering the recent rulings of this court and their make up its a wonder any voted in Bushs favor. If we had real judges it would have been 9 - 0 no recount.
Quote:
However, I still look at the 2000 election as perfect illustration of the methods not mattering to GOP, as long as the result suits them
I believe it was Gore who initiated the court battle.