Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Let me guess, although what Rove said didn't at all violate the actual statute, it fell within the "penumbra" and "spirit" of the statute, right?

Are you saying that something that doesn't violate the actual statute can't be repugnant?

If Rove (or any leaker) were clearly in the right, and wanted to discredit Mr. Plame, why not do it openly, and without veiled references to his once-covert wife?

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account
Of course the Bush lies crowd is conveniently ignoring this post. I wonder if any of y'all will be non-panty-waisted enough to apologize? Certainly y'all be eating crowshit when the WMDs turn up.


Indeed, more than two years after the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was ousted, there is much we do not know about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. We do know, however, that there was one. We know about this relationship not from Bush administration assertions but from internal Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) documents recovered in Iraq after the war--documents that have been authenticated by a U.S. intelligence community long hostile to the very idea that any such relationship exists.

Obviously a fabrication. We all know there were no ties between Saddam and Al Queda. Hell, it said so in the papers.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are we supposed to apologize to Bush for not believing something he never claimed?

It fell within the "penumbra" and "spirit" of what he was saying.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It fell within the "penumbra" and "spirit" of what he was saying.

Sure, but once o'connor's replacement is named, the need for an apology will be gone. let's wait.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you saying that something that doesn't violate the actual statute can't be repugnant?

If Rove (or any leaker) were clearly in the right, and wanted to discredit Mr. Plame, why not do it openly, and without veiled references to his once-covert wife?

Why? Because she used her position to get him the trip.

From WaPO:

Cooper, according to an internal Time e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine, spoke with Rove before Novak's column was published. In the conversation, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue.

Rove's conversation with Cooper could be significant because it indicates a White House official was discussing Plame prior to her being publicly named and could lead to evidence of how Novak learned her name.

Although the information is revelatory, it is still unknown whether Rove is a focus of the investigation. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said that Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has told him that Rove is not a target of the probe. Luskin said yesterday that Rove did not know Plame's name and was not actively trying to push the information into the public realm.

Instead, Luskin said, Rove discussed the matter -- under the cloak of secrecy -- with Cooper at the tail end of a conversation about a different issue. Cooper had called Rove to discuss other matters on a Friday before deadline, and the topic of Wilson came up briefly. Luskin said Cooper raised the question.

"Rove did not mention her name to Cooper," Luskin said. "This was not an effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true."

Let us also not forget that Rove - twice - signed a waiver allowing Cooper to reveal him as a source.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Only a pantywaist lets his wife get away with convincing him the forms are difficult in the first place - it usually involves checking a box on the form you use to file for the certificate. Registering the name change with SS & IRS is harder, but only in that you need to figure out where to get the forms. Dealing with the DMV and credit card people were by far the hardest part.

But probably not nearly as difficult as 20 years of convincing school, medical and other authorities that, despite the fact that you have a completely different name, those are indeed your kids and it is inappropriate for them to demand additional documentation to prove it before they let you pick them up.

I am form/administrative task dyslexic. I can't deal with anything that requires one to check off boxes. Tedious.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Obviously a fabrication. We all know there were no ties between Saddam and Al Queda. Hell, it said so in the papers.

Speaking of the papers, Judith Miller is making all of your boys look like sniveling pussies.

• July 11, 2005
  White House Won't Comment on Rove and Leak
  By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
  Filed at 2:11 p.m. ET
  
  WASHINGTON (AP) -- For two years, the White House has insisted that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a CIA officer's identity. And President Bush said the leaker would be fired.
  
  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.
  
  White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to discuss the matter at two news briefings Monday. He said he would not comment because the leak is the focus of a federal criminal investigation.
  
  ''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,'' McClellan said in response to a barrage of questions about Rove and the previous White House denials.
  
  ''I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said,'' McClellan said. ''And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time.'' He said the appropriate time would be when the investigation is completed.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why? Because she used her position to get him the trip.

From WaPO:



Let us also not forget that Rove - twice - signed a waiver allowing Cooper to reveal him as a source.

The fact that Plame authorized the trip says nothing about either his qualifications or the quality of his research. If he was unqualified or had crappy research, why not counter it with facts?

If it was a rogue mission, authorized by an underling who shouldn't have done so, it's easy to say something like "Wilson was sent by a mid-level officer at the agency on a lark, not by the director or anyone in his office."

What does the fact that it was his wife really add? Other than outing her, which has nothing to do with the substance.

Rove signed the waiver only after the leak became an issue. He's savvy at damage control, and had to sign the waiver given Bush's edict. And the waiver apparently wasn't understood by cooper until last week to have counted.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The fact that Plame authorized the trip says nothing about either his qualifications or the quality of his research. If he was unqualified or had crappy research, why not counter it with facts?

Some response from some site, laying out that what Rove was doing was telling some reporter, hey, slow down, here's a bunch of reasons why you need to use a bit of critical thinking skillz before printing what this serial liar is telling you:

"So let's review - Wilson lied about how he got to Niger, he lied about seeing a report that didn't even exist at the time, he lied about the conclusions of his own report(!), he lied about what the administration had been told, and his wife, Valerie Plame, specifically sent him on a mission to intentionally debunk a claim, not to find facts or perform inspections. I'd say the WaPo's conclusion is pretty sound on this one.

Also, it certainly gives life to the question of why the heck these two lied so darn much in absence of a clear and compelling political agenda driving their every move. Let's not rush to make these partisan hacks into saints - they attempted to cook the books against the administration and got busted for being the compulsive liars that they are. In the course of attempting to discredit the ludicrously false claims, someone in the White House (presumably Rove) told the press that Wilson was sent to Niger on dubious premises in the first place (the recommendation of his wife), without giving the name of Wilson's wife, which Rove apparently did not know.

When this story first broke on the scene, I thought that Rove should properly be banished from the administration team, despite the fact that even at that time it was pretty clear that no crime took place. However, given the serial and politically motivated lies of Wilson and Plame, it's clear that the fairy tale the liberals have constructed in which Plame was the heroic CIA agent unjustly outed by Arch-Demon Karl Rove is totally and completely false - and I won't be shedding any more tears about either of their fates. "

(More here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why? Because she used her position to get him the trip.

Are you under impression he was paid for this? I understood he wasn't.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Yes, that's the same title I gave my secretary (not the man-hands one).

I thought you gave the man-hands secretary a reach-around instead of a title?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I thought you gave the man-hands secretary a reach-around instead of a title?

I've heard that 26 of his ex-secretaries and summer associates have died mysteriously.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Obviously a fabrication. We all know there were no ties between Saddam and Al Queda. Hell, it said so in the papers.

Are you at all aware of the irony in making this statement while quoting a newspaper article?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Some response from some site, laying out that what Rove was doing was telling some reporter, hey, slow down, here's a bunch of reasons why you need to use a bit of critical thinking skillz before printing what this serial liar is telling you:

"So let's review - Wilson lied about how he got to Niger, he lied about seeing a report that didn't even exist at the time, he lied about the conclusions of his own report(!), he lied about what the administration had been told, and his wife, Valerie Plame, specifically sent him on a mission to intentionally debunk a claim, not to find facts or perform inspections. I'd say the WaPo's conclusion is pretty sound on this one.

Also, it certainly gives life to the question of why the heck these two lied so darn much in absence of a clear and compelling political agenda driving their every move. Let's not rush to make these partisan hacks into saints - they attempted to cook the books against the administration and got busted for being the compulsive liars that they are. In the course of attempting to discredit the ludicrously false claims, someone in the White House (presumably Rove) told the press that Wilson was sent to Niger on dubious premises in the first place (the recommendation of his wife), without giving the name of Wilson's wife, which Rove apparently did not know.

When this story first broke on the scene, I thought that Rove should properly be banished from the administration team, despite the fact that even at that time it was pretty clear that no crime took place. However, given the serial and politically motivated lies of Wilson and Plame, it's clear that the fairy tale the liberals have constructed in which Plame was the heroic CIA agent unjustly outed by Arch-Demon Karl Rove is totally and completely false - and I won't be shedding any more tears about either of their fates. "

(More here.

So, you argument here is that two wrongs do make a right?

(PI)

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Are you at all aware of the irony in making this statement while quoting a newspaper article?

It's plf irony, no?