Quote:
Tyrone Slothrop
eta: sgtclub posted the other night about how the board is much more polarized than it used to be, and I agreed that it mirrored the country this way. Your post is a perfect example of how and why Rove et al. push this polarization. You seem to think that there are only two positions in this debate, and that if you can trash Wilson then you win.
|
Actually, this all started [again] when the Dems started calling for Rove's head, over a non-leak.
Quote:
|
Who fucking cares about whether Wilson told the truth about this stuff?
|
Exactly. Ignore the reasons why Plame came up in the first place (nepotism).
Quote:
|
You can think that Wilson is an opportunist who likes the spotlight a little too much and who can't keep his story straight over time, and still think that he was right to call attention to the Administration's scaremongering about Niger uranium, and that Rove et al. were wrong to defenestrate his wife.
|
If that's all he did (call attention to scaremongering), I wouldn't have much of a problem. Recall that he was calling for Rove to frogmarched out of DC in cuffs a long, long time ago.
Quote:
|
I asked you the other day how Rove could have known when he was talking to Cooper and Novak that Wilson was a partisan hack. You've ducked that question. Wilson's many actions and words since then aren't an answer.
|
I'm not ducking anything. It's a simple answer.
In June and July on 2003, before his NYT signed op-ed and during the time he was talking to Kristof, Wilson was going around to anyone and everyone in DC that would listen that (i) contrary to his original report, there were no Niger-Iraq meetings and (ii) that documents were forged, even though he hadn't seen them.
Why would a Gore supporter and husband of a CIA worker (who- even before his trip deemed the Niger connection as "crazy" ) make such statements? The only justifiable answer is "partisan hack"
